Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 19

< August 18	August 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete due to lack of independent reliable sources. — TKD::Talk 23:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1820 Society

This may or may not be notable, but the article as written doesn't show any showing of notability. Wizardman 19:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the new references added in, I'll check back on the article shortly to see if it then passes notability, looks like it might now. Wizardman 20:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The current one-sentence article could certainly use some work. I was, however, able to find some links referring to the group: [1] [2] [3]—Travis ^talk 19:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and expand Though the article contains little contents without any references, it can be expanded based on above links.--NAHID 19:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 23:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They fail WP:ORG and are not notable.--58.108.249.136 08:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Per NAHID. ♠TomasBat 20:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete one sentence doesn't constitute an article. If somebody wants to recreate properly, then let them; but for now goodbye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.44.154 (talk) 06:05, August 24, 2007 (UTC) (sorry, forgot to add tildes: 87.127.44.154 06:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete unless independent reliable sources establishing notability are provided. The three 'references' provided so far are the society's home page and two exact copies. Nuttah68 11:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 18:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donald A. Yerxa

Doesn't appear to establish notability, in accordance with WP:N. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 23:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 03:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. His publication record per his CV (linked on the article), with three authored books (one of which shows some citations on Google Scholar) and several edited ones, 30 or so papers, plus his positions at Eastern Nazarene College (full professorship, Chair of History Department & Director of Pre-Law Program) and the Boston University Historical Society (Assistant Director & co-editor of their magazine)[4] seem likely to meet my understanding of WP:PROF. Not my area, though, so please let me know if this is inappropriate. Espresso Addict 19:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added several links and some more text establishing Yerxa's academic and publishing leadership roles. I'm new to this, not sure of how to apply WP policy, but let me know if I am going the right direction...--JA 21:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally the guidelines that apply to academics are WP:PROF. Essentially, the article has to demonstrate, ideally using sources independent of the subject, that the subject is considered an expert in their field by peers and/or has published a body of work which is widely cited. It's worth noting, though, that different people in AfD often apply WP:PROF both to support retention and deletion.

Authors of books with a non-academic audience which have received multiple independent reviews might also be notable as authors, and this is often easier to establish than the above; see Wikipedia:Notability (books) and Wikipedia:Notability (people) under Creative professionals; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes is also helpful. If you're aware of book reviews, particularly in the mainstream (or at least not highly specialised) press, then that would be very useful. Espresso Addict 22:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References to and quotes from well-known critical reviewers added. --JA 12:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added more references and I think, with more work from another party, it can be an even better article. Aepoutre 16:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete due to lack of independent reliable sources. — TKD::Talk 23:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cutting Edge with Perry Manno

No evidence of notability; prod removed by creator. Although it's not a criteria for deletion, note that creator's username indicates a probable conflict of interest. FisherQueen (Talk) 17:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for removing the notice of deletion, I wasn't aware that was not to be done. I am currently in the middle of editing the article and making it more informative. I have also added references. Explain why there's no evidence of notability. I have read wikipedia's requirements for notability and I find that this meets them. Also, being an avid user of wikipedia I know for a fact that there are articles with much less notability than this. Gnmanno 17:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Jakew 19:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per very narrow scope of notability Corpx 00:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to sound rude, and this may come off that way but it's not intended that way. I don't know how carefully you all are reading this article, because you must have missed the fact that the show is nationally syndicated. It's broadcast from 1390 WRIV in Riverhead, but it's played on networks all around the country. Obviously the show is not huge like Rush Limbaugh's and Dennis Millers, but the show has only been around for 5 years. We were hoping that a wikipedia article would help make the show better known. Also I feel it's unfair that I've barely had a chance to put information on the article and it's already up for deletion. Whether someone is writing about the show or not I don't know, but I could easily find out, and if so, when I have the chance, I will add information and references from these sources. And I also need to ask you, why is my username a conflict of interest? Because the name Manno comes up in it? Gnmanno 21:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it really be nationally syndicated if it is carried by 20 radio stations? Either way, I'm striking my delete vote Corpx 18:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for striking your delete vote. We are aware that it's only carried by 20 stations, and we'd like it to be carried by more but that will come with time. However these are stations all across the country, which by definition make it national. Once again thank you for striking your delete vote. It's highly appreciated. Gnmanno 21:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any source, other than the radio show's own web page, that can confirm that it is broadcast in twenty cities? The article still has no second-party sources, and I'm afraid that really is required by the notability criteria. I did my own search but couldn't find any. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted Perry and he will be supplying me with some second party sources that have written about the show.Gnmanno 05:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations of spamming are incorrectly conceived, that's all I have to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnmanno (talk • contribs) 01:41, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 23:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until outside references show up. MarkinBoston 01:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete not only under notability but also under advert/npov criteria, as gnmanno says: "We are hoping that a wikipedia article would help make the show better known" and "we are aware that it's only carried by 20 stations, and we'd like it to be carried by more but that will come with time". Well, with time, it may warrant a WP article, right now it doesn't. 87.127.44.154 06:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some sources establishing notability are given. User:Gnmanno's comment do raise serious COI and spam issues. Nuttah68 11:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete JoshuaZ 20:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viv Kind

Article is unsourced and appears to be possible vanity. It is also an orphan article, unreferenced anywhere other than in log pages and therefore appears not to meet WP:Notability Dick G 07:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ah, someone I've met! Not notable per WP:BIO, Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability. I would suggest only including those York local councillors who have been Lord Mayor of York or Leader of City of York Council, and then only if they have significant coverage in news articles. --Malcolmxl5 07:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 23:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - not notable 87.127.44.154 06:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, local politicians are not inherently notable and the article offers no other claims. Nuttah68 11:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE (I merged the content to Aircraft maintenance) with no prejudice to splitting later. - Nabla 17:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft Disinsection

Article is an unsourced stub, and has had tags to that effect since its creation; creator has not even edited the page since the first day. No notability claimed or established, and is a minor topic better covered in another, broader article, such as something on aircraft maintenance. BillCJ 23:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Aircraft maintenance and Delete. Better one stub with more info than two with little. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only useful info in this article has now been merged into Aircraft maintenance, so delete (or redirect). Melsaran (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep that a topic is of no interest to a random selection of Wikipedians does not mean that this topic is of no significance or is not notable. I'm showing my age but I remember this procedure when flying from the UK to Hong Kong and the explanation was that it was to prevent the expansion of the Malarial zone (the area where malaria is endemic) and other diseases by insects hitching a ride from tropical climes. With the warming of Europe an article on this topic may become more important and notable, as the fear is that mosquitoes which previously fell victim to the cold may establish breeding colonies, spreading the footprint of tropical diseases. The problem is that this topic has been treated as an aircraft topic and so its audience has been limited to those interested in aircraft, engineering and hardware and so has found no takers to expand or add to it. The article properly belongs to Epidemiology and disease control, if links can be created to appropriate Biology articles than the number of passerbys with an interest and knowledge of the topic would be greatly expanded and this topic stands a chance of being properly dealt with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KTo288 (talk • contribs) 18:38, August 23, 2007 (UTC). (Apologies for forgetting to add my signature)KTo288 21:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep JoshuaZ 20:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan digitization project

This says little more than what is already at Google Book Search, other than a bunch of external links to press releases, news articles, etc (which is not what WIkipedia is for. ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't believe we are a directory of all digitization projects undertaken by library and records agencies, as that would be quite extensive. --Dhartung | Talk 03:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable digitization project. Pioneer project as well as the largest. __earth ^(Talk) 03:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While this page shares many similarities with the Google Book Search article, the articles linked from this page discuss the University of Michigan's participation in this project, which is controversial in itself. Also, the article focuses on the efforts by the University of Michigan, and not Google, on providing a separate access system. And Wikipedia certainly does have a directory of digitization projects undertaken by library and records agencies: List_of_digital_library_projects. Perry Willett 14:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just pointing out a possible conflict of interest, as User:Cpw421 (signed as "Perry Willett") is apparently the head of Michigan's digitization project. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wasn't trying to hide that--I am the head of the Digital Library Production Service at the University of Michigan. I wrote most of this Wikipedia article.Perry Willett 18:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worry - I wasn't trying to convey that you were hiding it. Just making it clear to everyone else. (And it isn't necessarily a problem) Cheers. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on whether you think we can improve the article, or whether you think the subject is simply inappropriate. I realize that there are a lot of links to University of Michigan material, which we can offload to a local webpage. There are also a lot of links to other articles, but they all comment in some way (positively or negatively) on Michigan's participation in this project. It would be difficult to reproduce this bibliography using Google or other search engines, and certainly isn't included in the page for Google Book Search. Anyway, if you have recommendations for improvement that would make this article acceptable, I'd be very interested. Thanks, Perry Willett 20:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to echo Perry's request for editing advice. Are there steps that could be taken to edit this article so that it would more clearly stand alone? The Michigan Digitization Project is distinct from the Google Book Search project in a number of major ways that would seem to warrant a separate article. Is the problem lack of additional content, as opposed to just additional links? Deletion seems like a drastic step in this case. Disclaimer: I work for the University of Michigan Library, but not on the Digitization Project. --Molly.ak 20:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as edited -- by me. A truly notable project, as Michigan has been the leader in Google Books, and the model that other libraries do -- or don't -- follow. The article as written was more suitable for a professional journal than an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. The links to all the refs may be valuable, but they are not really appropriate here. I suggest that they be collected and published on your own site. DGG (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete JoshuaZ 15:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Single payer health insurance

Article is POV fork from Single payer health care. Sole author chose to create this article rather than resolve naming dispute and other content disputes on existing article. Other than content previously disputed and deleted from Single payer health care, this article essentially duplicates the other. Sfmammamia 23:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. I made the fork after discussing it on the talk page two weeks ago. The original article was talking about both single payer health care systems in general and a specific single payer health care system called single payer health insurance which unfortunately has a similar name. Kborer 23:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, it's a POV fork. You haven't convinced me that "single payer health care systems" and "single payer health insurance" are two distinct concepts. If you cited reliable sources to prove your case, I might agree, but you haven't done so. Nbauman 02:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the same reasons as given by Users sfmammamia and Nbauman.--Tom 16:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same as above. MarkinBoston 01:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Non admin closure. JulesH 07:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World's largest airlines

{{{text}}} Pdbailey 23:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Ummm....? Can you give us a reason?Cool Blue^{talk to me} 23:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article uses the internationally authoritative IATA as its reference, so we have RS'es. Passenger totals are often reported in newspapers, so verifiability is not a problem, and I think notability will not be a problem to establish if it isn't already manifest. At the time of this !vote, the nominating user has not provided a rationale behind this AfD, so these arguments are necessarily nonspecific. Ante lan ^talk 23:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some lists are encyclopedic, and this is a good example. The information is presented in valuable ways that could not be done in a category, one of the basic considerations, and the material is important. DGG (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, no reason given. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to List of airlines by size or List of largest airlines. The current name isn't suitable for a list, and "World" is unnecessary, since all lists deal with the "world" unless the article name is specific to an area. Crazysuit 02:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per no reason given, and DGG's arguments. Reso lute 02:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. I don't see any problems with verification or notability. Useight 06:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete JoshuaZ 15:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Oak Village Place

Non-notable strip mall/lifestyle center/whatever in Michigan. Tagged for references since March, only improvement was a ref for the opening date of JCPenney. Online searches find virtually no other sources (believe me, I tried to improve this article first). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's pretty new, not much info about, and probably not much open right now. Maybe when it gets bigger, but its too small right now. - Presidentman 22:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most of it is open now, I've been there. I just can't find any sources that say that more of the mall's been opened... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Per nom. Regional malls such as this at 550,000 sq ft need at least some references to satisfy WP:N. Edison 15:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral That's right on the borderline for notability so no votes for one side on this one.--JForget 00:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep To be clear, this article is being kept because of the presence of multiple, independent non-trivial reliable sources which is the general standard, not the number of views. JoshuaZ 21:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happyslip

An article for a YouTube user? Come on!! This is not an encyclopaedia. It fails WP:NOTABILITY and all of its references back cite to the user's page on YouTube. — Indon (reply) — 22:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, you're probably right :). That was my first edit ever; I thought I'd start an article on a person I like. However there are several YouTube users with Wikipedia articles (see Category:YouTube_video_producers). The number of subscribers is regarded as the main parameter of notability on YouTube, and the category above lists several users which I think fail WP:NOTABILITY even more then she does. You're right about the references, though... I'll see if I can find something outside YouTube. --Outspan 22:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It mentions many times that she has a total of over 17M viewers altogther, and the 6th most subscribed user. Doesn't that sound notable to you? - Presidentman 22:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't sound notable to me. Shall we put also popular flickr user? or friendster? or whatever web user? Notability is proven by a non-trivial independent reliable source, not based on how many people watch the web. I can create a robot to boost my own viewer count. — Indon (reply) — 08:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm reading the notability criteria, and the evidence is there, although I wish it were stronger. All the sources confirm that this person is popular on YouTube. Happyslip has won second place for YouTube Best Comedy Award- YouTube doesn't produce its content, so I'm not sure if an award from them counts as 'independent' enough. She's also won Phillipine Blog Award for Podcast of the Year. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FisherQueen, blog and link to its own, let alone YouTube, do not consider as reliable source, per WP:RS and Wikipedia:Biographies of living_persons#Sources (if we consider him/her as real person). — Indon (reply) — 08:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: 16 million number is not supported by reference given. Editor has falsely quoted references to overstate alleged notability. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 22:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Reference is fixed now. Still, are ALL 17+ million YouTube users notable? - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 22:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note The YouTube source does confirm over 17 million page views. You have to scroll down to the bottom of the page, but I saw it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to update. No, not all, or even most, YouTube users are notable. I think it's reasonable to say that some are, though. See lonelygirl15 for another example of a notable YouTube broadcaster. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lonelygirl is notable because of the controversy more than her number of views. I still think that only top few (ten at the most) are notable. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 22:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to reply to reply :) I agree; pageviews alone do not make one notable. If I hadn't found the awards, I'd have said delete no matter how many pageviews it had. Honestly, I'd still like to see some more sources, as right now, my support is there but not strong. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to reply to reply to reply ;) I agree too; I think it's rather the pageviews number combined with one of the very first positions in the most subscribed list (notice that all users until the number 8 in the ranking have an article) and the award. --Outspan 22:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with you there. Actually, both theres. All the way. :) --Moonriddengirl 22:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too much indentation. See Below for reply.

Keep, unless I'm misreading something. I look at the source given and it says "Videos: 30 Views: 17,107,948" She seems notable for her role on the site. --Moonriddengirl 22:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are not misread the count, but probably did not correctly read proper guideline for WP:NOTABILITY in Wikipedia. — Indon (reply) — 08:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Or perhaps I interpret it differently than you do. :) Under bio: "Entertainers...: has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Youtube may not be high art, but it's undeniably a field of entertainment. She's been singled out by viewers of the site for special recognition. She seems notable for her role on the site. I would feel her case is stronger if she had more third party references (and it seems that those are being located below), but I think that this could make a test case in itself for suitability of citations. As I understand it, the purpose of third party verifiability is to be sure that the subject is not offering misleading information. In this particular case, especially with her 2006 viewer support, there doesn't seem to be any way for her to falsify that. I believe that statistics from within youtube are sufficient for this purpose. Youtube has no reason to falsely promote this one entertainer. --Moonriddengirl 11:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Number of views on YouTube is about as useful as Ghits. All it says is that people have viewed the videos. That doesn't assert notability, nor is it an independently verifiable source of notability. In fact, the only assertion of notability is the 2006 Video Awards link… but, she hasn't won anything, nor even formally been nominated. It's just a vote by site-users. Unless someone can find some verifiable independent sources of notability, this article should be deleted. -- Kesh 22:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I previoulsy said "strong delete", based on faulty evinced and the stuck out that vote. Now that everything is fixed, I still feel the article should be deleted. After reviewing WP:WEB and WP:BIO, I find that there are no well-known, independent works or awards referring to HappySlip, nor has she been mentioned in any fashion outside of YouTube and some guy's blog. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 23:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete youtube celeb with no real notability outside of youtube. Youtube views are not substitute for real coverage from independent sources Corpx 02:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I mentioned above, it's not just the views but rather the combination of that, the fact she is one of the very first positions in the most subscribed list (notice that all users until the number 8 in the ranking have an article) and the award. Anyways, in case this gets deleted, I think that articles like thehill88, Jackson Davis, Emmalina, James Kotecki, Ben Going, Richard Stern should be considered for deletion too. --Outspan 09:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Except for Jackson Davis, who arguably meets WP:BIO by virtue of his significant role in lonelygirl15, the subjects of the articles you mention all have independent coverage from secondary sources. ~~HappySlip does not. Believe me, I've looked.~~ Ichormosquito 09:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move to Christine Gambito for the exsistence of numerous independent secondary sources among which NY Times, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, San Francisco Chronicle (see below). Delete votes seem not to be aware of those sources. There should be a redirect to Christine Gambito from Happyslip too. -- Outspan [talk · contribs] 08:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete I can't believe I missed this when it was first nominated (a full day ago). I think the argument I made in the Kevjumba AfD discussion is applicable here too. A large subscription and/or viewership rate is not enough to establish notability. YouTube, despite how popular it is, is essentially a site of self-published media. I don't see the subject as meeding any of the notability requirements of WP:BIO. Also, take note that a subscription base of 65,000 is really not as significant as it may sound, as (A) viewership on YouTube is restricted to a relatively specific community, and is not as diverse and widespread as say, film, television, or even radio, and (B) compared to the regular viewership of most entertainers, 65,000 is still a pretty small number. If she had any significant coverage in other media, or was notable for any work outside of YouTube, then I could understand an exception, but as it stands, I don't see any indication that she passes WP:BIO. Also, in general, I think Wikipedia may need specific notability guidelines for internet celebrities, a category that may be specific, but is also relatively unique. Calgary 09:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Keep The sources found are more than enough to pass WP:BIO. Calgary 04:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For easy access, here's a link to the AfD for Kevjumba you mention. ~~It had many of the same issues this AfD has: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevjumba.~~ Ichormosquito 10:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and move to Christine Gambito Delete If HappySlip had coverage from independent, secondary sources, I would factor that in with her impressive YouTube stats and my opinion might be different. Unfortunately, she doesn't, at least not yet. Ichormosquito 09:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Strong Keep and move to Christine Gambito, per the existence of secondary sources with varying degrees of reliability; an apparent "cult audience"; and uber-prominence on YouTube, the most visited web site on the internet that isn't a web portal. Ichormosquito 11:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OOOO! Looky: This looks pretty reliable to me, from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. I find another half as good and I'm changing my opinion to "keep". Ichormosquito 11:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Comment Quote: "People not only got her jokes, they made her into an Internet video celebrity." Ichormosquito 11:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Comment The above source was nationally syndicated; I saw it from The Miami Herald as well. At Red Orbit, the story has "Christine Gambito" in the title. Ichormosquito 13:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Comment Story at somewhat notable web based news publication.[5] It's the Asia Sentinel, but God knows its Wiki-article wouldn't pass at AfD. Ichormosquito 11:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Comment Article at Asian Journal Online[6]. I'm not familiar with it, so I don't know how reliable or notable the publication is; but it's a secondary source and chock full of info. Ichormosquito 11:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC) 'Comment The Asian Journal seems to be having server problems that it didn't have last night. Here's the page:[7] Ichormosquito 04:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Comment Autobiographical article[8] printed in Back Stage. Ichormosquito 11:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Comment This clinches it, from BusinessWeek: The High Price of Getting Paid for Content. The funny thing is, I haven't even exhausted my Google search yet. Ichormosquito11:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Comment Local coverage at hamptonroads.com, the first is an interview.[9][10] On the scale of reliability, I'd say hamptontroads.com would rank above a blog. Ichormosquito 12:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Comment Here[11] she's interviewed by two San Francisco Chronicle reporters for that newspaper's podcast. Ichormosquito 12:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Comment Nearly all of the above sources call her a "star" or some variation of. Ichormosquito 14:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for Ichormosquito: instead of putting sources here, why don't you put them in the article so I can review the case? Based on the sources you gave, if the editors rename this article to Christina Gambito, then it's a different story. — Indon (reply) — 16:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with you. Should I just copy-n-paste, or it's better to move it? If so, could anyone do it for me -- my account is new and not yet enabled to move pages. So do you think there should also be a redirect from Happyslip to Christine Gambito? -- Outspan [talk · contribs] 20:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can move it, but we should wait until the AfD is over. Ichormosquito 21:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was planning to get them in there, but I didn't have time last night. I listed them so the article wouldn't get speedied. Ichormosquito 21:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete~~ - The only reliable source information about Happyslip independent of "Happyslip" I could find was that "YouTube is sharing ad revenue with its "most prolific" content creators, including Happyslip." That one sentence might be good for the YouTube article, but it's hardly enough write an article on Happyslip. ~~The topic fails WP:N for lack of reliable source information about Happyslip independent of Happyslip.~~ -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Follow-up - More information can be found by looking for "www.happyslip.com" and "Christine Gambito". In any event, the article now contains enough relaible source material to meet WP:N. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the references above? -- Outspan [talk · contribs] 20:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question: I also found a tv interview, does that count in any way? Btw, should these links be added in reference or external links section? Sorry for asking but I'm a newbie here ;) -- Outspan [talk · contribs] 20:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You can certainly source it, but I think editors might be divided over linking to a pirated YouTube video. I don't have a problem with it. As for the other sources, just copy the sources into an external links section; and we can incorporate them into the article over the next day or so. Ichormosquito 21:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can use what the interviewer says, but statements by Happyslip in the interview are not independent of her and thus do not qualify as independent WP:RS material. It's one way Wikipedia keeps the article sizes down. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not meet BIO requirement. Outside of YouTube, no one can source her as a quote "Internet Celebrity". She creates VLOGs, why is that notable ? Apelike 00:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Again, a quote from Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: "People not only got her jokes, they made her into an Internet video celebrity." The other sources say the same kind of thing. The closing admin should look over this user's edit history and my case against him at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remi Broadway. I don't want to go further into it here. Ichormosquito 02:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. -- Ichormosquito 04:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet. —Ichormosquito 04:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep article blatantly passed WP:BIO after the numerous sources that Ichormosquito found. Delete votes appear not to be reading the discussion, as they're not providing any rationale for why a half dozen sources should be ignored. --JayHenry 05:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - And it seems you found even more sources. Ichormosquito 06:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current version passes WP:BIO. --ElKevbo 11:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to the subject's real name. There are some unreliable sources per WP:RS, but it only needs some clean up. — Indon (reply) — 11:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth I'm sorta neutral on the rename. WP:NAME says the name should prefer the title that's most easily recognized. Tens of thousands of YouTubers know her as Happyslip, where I'm guessing a much smaller number of people know her as Christine Gambito. But as I see it, it's not a big deal either way, as one title or the other will simply redirect and both names will be mentioned in the first section. --JayHenry 20:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject of nontrivial mainstream media coverage. Eleland 21:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep What a ridiculous nomination. HappySlip has millions of views and is one of the most popular series on YouTube. - JNighthawk 05:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dragonbite 05:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Heymann standard. Bearian 18:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge. Some of the delete comments below favor a "delete and merge" option, which isn't available due to the terms of content license, which encourages redirecting to preserve content attribution history. Besides this legal/policy concern, the consensus of comments (as opposed to bolded recommendations) supports such a merge.Chaser - T 02:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of South Carolina Board of Trustees

Recommended deletion, Merge information with the main University of South Carolina page. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 21:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Start page, will expound upon later. Information of the BOT is not entirely germane to main USC page; like the South Carolina Gamecocks page, the Presidents of the University of South Carolina page, etc. Gamecock 22:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article only contains material that is better placed on the University of South Carolina page. --Stormbay 22:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with University of South Carolina. - Presidentman 22:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, every university has a board of trustees or equivalent, and to list all members and chairs would be indiscriminate. As with mission statements and the like, this is simply information an encyclopedia does not need. --Dhartung | Talk 03:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The page does not list all members, but merely what the board is and what its functions are. The page was modeled after the precedent set by: Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service, Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses.

The USC BOT has had a number of notables, whereas most boards do not. For instance, every board includes the Governor of South Carolina. Vice President John C. Calhoun was on the board, several speakers of the state house have been members, a number of Lieutenant Governors, etc. For the entire antebellum period, the board regularly included the influential men of the state.

The board's composition is the chief reason for the creation of Clemson University. The Radical Republicans controlled the state government during Reconstruction and thus elected their own to the board. The Radicals on the board pushed for blacks to be admitted to the University and this is the principle reason why Thomas Clemson wanted an agriculture college that was not to be controlled by the state government. Notice that the Clemson BOT has a majority of members who are self-perpetuating life members, so that the state government can never impose its will upon the college.

The power structure is as follows: state of South Carolina --> University of South Carolina Board of Trustees --> Presidents of the University of South Carolina --> University of South Carolina --> South Carolina Gamecocks. There's a page for the Presidents, but shouldn't there be a page for the body that elects the President? (similar to the United States Electoral College electing the President of the United States)

Much scholarly research has been done on the BOT in the following secondary sources:

Green, Edwin L. (1916). A History of the University of South Carolina. The State Company.
Hollis, Daniel Walker (1956), University of South Carolina, vol. I, University of South Carolina Press
Hollis, Daniel Walker (1956), University of South Carolina, vol. II, University of South Carolina Press
LaBorder, M.D., M. (1859). History of the South Carolina College. Peter B. Glass.
Lesesne, Henry H. (2001). A History of the University of South Carolina, 1940-2000. University of South Carolina Press.

In addition, the BOT is regularly mentioned in the newspapers of the state, including The State, The Post and Courier, the Greenville News, just to name a few. It was mentioned earlier this month over the academic standards set for football players when the head coach complained. Gamecock 01:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above, definitely not suitable for an individual article.--JForget 00:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Most of this obviously goes better in the main article. The Clemson part goes with Clemson. DGG (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Presidentman and DGG. --Aarktica 20:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great comebacks (football)

Article title is inherently POV, stating that these comebacks were "great". If it were changed to simply include all wins from the sport which overcame a deficit at some point, it would be unwieldy, unmanageable, and a gigabyte long. The few genuinely iconic comebacks can be covered under the articles for their parent team. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to a more suitable title - I can't think of one personally but that's why Wikipedia is a community project ;-). I think as long as you require a reliable source for each comeback listed in the article (for example, for Milan vs. Liverpool 2005 - [12] "Liverpool beat AC Milan 3-2 in a penalty shoot-out to win the Champions League after sensationally coming from three goals down at half-time. [...] It capped an amazing turnaround, with Liverpool looking out of contention after they were completely outclassed in the first-half."), the article could stay. ugen64 21:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Over here we have similar articles about American football, where a team is losing by a lot and somehow salvages a victory. However, there's more to it than simply listing what the score was and what it ended up being, like how much time was left on the clock when "your team were down 4:0"? Can the comeback be explained in a sentence or two? Second, the one nice thing about sportsfans is that some of them get published. Without some cites to a newspaper or magazine article that has a list of great comebacks (or major upsets, blowouts, etc) it's just your opinion. Maybe it seems enough to present facts (down 4-0, but we won 5-4) and let the reader infer the rest, but not all comebacks from being down 1-0 are noteworthy comebacks ... I mean, what if someone scores in the first minute, then it's tied up a few minutes later, and you go ahead to win 2-1? Type in "great comebacks" in google and see how others approach that subject. Mandsford 21:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I agree here, but there are some very obvious candidates for "great comebacks" (for example I noticed Man Utd 5-3 Tottenham, in that match I believe Tottenham scored 3 goals in the first half and Man Utd scored 5 in the second half). In addition, comebacks in a lower level of competition (for example Conference National) would rarely be considered notable, no matter how great the comeback was. ugen64 22:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete w. note - In the event these games are particularly notable on their own, then an individual game article would be fine and relevant text could be copied (for a similar example see: Chicken Soup Game). Otherwise, delete without prejudice. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 22:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete – Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This little group is far more indiscriminate, as well as non-notable and not sourced. Ksy92003(talk) 22:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is trivial information and wp is not a "trivia collection". Besides, there are way too many "comebacks" to list them all Corpx 02:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Juan Miguel Fangio. Any genuinely notable outcomes can be noted in individual team/event pages. Dbromage [Talk] 03:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV + define "great"? Lugnuts 05:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who decides what is a great comeback? Number 5 7 08:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete trivia and useless.--JForget 00:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as per Number 57, even a comprehensive list of big comebacks 3-0 or more would still be huge.King of the North East 12:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very subjective. Delete per Ksy92003. --Malcolmxl5 20:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the nom observed, this is inherently POV. Oldelpaso 16:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted per speedy request. Tawker 21:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion Square Mall

Non-Notable Shopping Mall. Fails WP:N. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 21:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong delete~~ Speedy delete as nonsense, not only is it a non-notable mall, half the info's wrong. That mall never had a Woolworth. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is not sourced and makes no attempt to assert its importance. It is a non-notable mall. --Stormbay 22:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Per TenPoundHammer. - Presidentman 22:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per notability.Brusegadi 23:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TenPoundHammer. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WTF is a "smoking table"? Non-notable and incoherent. Nate 05:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. There could certainly be an encyclopedic article on this topic (probably under a different title), but this WP:OR violation isn't that article. Xoloz 16:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of Persians and belief

Appears to be largely original research from primary sources. Also see this debate. Deprodded by anon. Alksub 21:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- → AA ^(talk) — 22:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Origional research.--Sefringle^Talk 22:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete same situation as in the last discussion.Proabivouac 22:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasoning.Brusegadi 23:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons for PROD'ing and previous Afd discussion on related topic. → AA ^(talk) — 09:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a trait of many "Hadith of..." articles is that they are not independently notable, and much of the contents are generally original research (with the odd exception, of course). i think the comments from the previous debate ring true here. ITAQALLAH 15:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe I am missing the point. This does not appear to be original research but sets forth the various points of view about this hadith. I went to the article to find out about this hadith, and it answered my question. The article seems to be quite encyclopedic and not too textbooky, although the two are conceptually quite close together. I am sure that there are reams of commentary about this hadith (as there is about all hadiths), and I thought that the article did a nice job of summarizing them. We must not conflate original research (such as where you do the experiment and report your direct observations) with proper book research where you attempt to synthesize the literature, without adding your own POV. However, I do think that the article could stand a little tightening up. --70.57.246.220 00:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Sorry I didn't realize that I'd been logged out. I wrote this. --Bejnar 00:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete A7 as non-notable band, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neon King Kong

non-notable band in single year of existence Chris 21:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Their myspace has about 350 friends. Some regular users have more than that. Not notable for a band. Brusegadi 23:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, non-notable band, no claims to notability, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. @pple 09:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of weapon packs in Gundam series

Listcruft. Falls into same position as "list of cars in ridge racer" type article. Oscarthecat 21:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, since it's about a TV series. However, I'm not sure this article's asserts any real-world notability for the subject. *Delete unless we can get some sources that support notability? --Haemo 01:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just as if this was a video game, I do not think WP is the place for it Corpx 02:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge The original page was fix and moved to this page because it is purely OR of one of the series of Gundam, but the whole thing is not any better, I'm just lazy enough not to start an AfD myself for it. The contents should be moved to separate related articles like the lists of mecha in separate series, which WP:FICT clearly states that a list of minor characters are allowed if it made the original article too long. MythSearcher^talk 06:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete One article per game is quite enough. Beorhtric 16:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not a game, it is an anime TV series. --Silver Edge 18:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It's not even just an anime TV series. It's a metaseries, a franchise consisting of several anime series, several manga series, videogames, novels, etc. One article cannot cover all of that as per WP:SIZE. However, the information in this article could be merged with the various articles on their respective Eras (Universal Century, After War, Cosmic Era, etc.), along with the lists of mobile units from the respective Eras and the List of mobile suit operating systems, which are all also under Articles for deletion in WikiProject Gundam. -Rycr 10:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable, verifiable out-of-universe third party sources to establish its notability. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These things are not significant by themselves nor within the series (except for one or two). If there is a separate article for the mobile suit they are associated with, some content should be incorporated there. --Polaron | Talk 01:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus leaning towards keep. No compelling explanation of why a category would be better was given and a list seems to be a convenient way of keeping those. Sourcing should not be an issue since many of the linked articles have sourcing. I suggest that those interested in keeping this list help source it. JoshuaZ 21:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of magical weapons

Listcruft. Huge number of magical weapons present in fantasy fiction. Oscarthecat 21:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment going off the criteria suggested, it would be perfectly valid to add all the items listed on this Everquest page. --Oscarthecat 17:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. It seemed like a good idea at the time. Marasmusine 21:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to go with a keep here. You can conceivably cat this, but the fact remains taht this isn't that big of a list, and it lists these fairly descriptively. It looks to me to fit within the constraints of WP:LIST, so I'm inclined to not worry. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an indiscriminate collection of info. These magical weapons could be from books, fairy tales, movies, video games, or anything. It would make the list huge and difficult to maintain. Useight 22:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no reason not to group notable magical weapons from different sources in one place until the list actually gets too big, at which point it could be split. Kappa 22:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced, indiscriminate list. -- Kesh 22:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are almost all blue links Kappa 23:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, rather than deleting it, at least keep the part which is a list of mythological weapons. Kappa 23:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as List of mythological weapons, per Kappa, and delete the recent fictional ones (and Zeus's lightning). Clarityfiend 23:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Isn't this exactly what a category is for? If a magical weapon is notable, it should have its own page. Otherwise, this is just a big-ole collection of trivia; magic weapons are common to two whole genres of literature, video games, and television. Listing all of them seems wildly too broad; it's like "list of fictional elves". --Haemo 01:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per list of loosely associated items and trivia Corpx 02:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Usefulness is a part of the criteria for lists--this is a fairly selective list of items mostly from very major works, and serves well as orientation and navigation. More information is provided than would be possible in a category.DGG (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG — this is not indiscriminate, as magical weapons are a recurrent theme in folklore and literature of many countries. The list presents more organization and context than a category could (and could include more than it does). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we're going to have a navigational aide for magical weapons it should be as a category, not an article. Jay32183 19:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why shouldn't we tell people what kind of weapon they are and what culture/fictional world they are from? Kappa 23:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems to me that magical weapons are a notable topic, so a list isn't inherently inappropriate or indiscriminate. A category is not ideal because I find it unlikely that every valid magical weapon would merit it's own page. -Chunky Rice 23:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (should be a category) or merge if conceivable. — Deckill er 01:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At the risk of repeating myself, why shouldn't we tell people what kind of weapon they are and what culture/fictional world they are from? Kappa 07:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The category and opening sentences of each article/section can do that. — Deckill er 07:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Categories are very good at listing articles alphabetically without any annotation. Lists are good for other ordering types with annotation. Category:Magical weapons in Arthurian legend would be overcategorization, but fits nicely as a section in a list. Have I created listcruft? No, I think the list could be a useful navigation aid. Marasmusine 07:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This (Deckiller's) argument appears to be based on the rather silly idea that people will actually take the time to click on a list of random weird names just to see what they are about. Kappa 09:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm sorry you find my thoughts "silly". Anyway, I'm not going to get entrenched in a fundamental disagreement. — Deckill er 14:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually it's an empirical question, but personally when I am faced with a list of obscure names I just click on a couple at random then give up. I guess deletionists are the kind of obsessive people who would go through the whole list - wonder if any of them use dialup. Kappa 20:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        This list does not contain appropriate annotation to make it more than a mere navigation aide. There is also a disconnect between random items on the list. There isn't a connection meaningful enough to link the articles beyond the capabilities of a category. People who go through categories and lists basically already know what they're looking for. Some one researching magical weapons will still get what he or she is looking for by going through the category. Jay32183 20:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        What is this assertion based on? I think that it is likely that many people simply browse Wikipedia (including lists and categories) without any particular purpose. I know I do. Can you back up your claim that users who look at lists and categories already know what they're looking for? -Chunky Rice 21:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If you don't care what you find you use random article. Other than that, everything on Wikipedia should be written with the assumption that users are looking for something, because not doing that hurts the people who are actually looking for something. If you aren't looking for anything in particular, then what do you care how it is organized? In this case a category is better for people looking for something and it makes no difference to those looking for nothing. The only logical thing to do is delete the list and take advantage of the categories that already exist, Category:Mythological weapons and Category:Fictional weapons. Jay32183 21:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No offense, but I have no idea what you're saying here. There's a pretty big difference between clicking on links that interest you without any particular research goal and clicking "random article." A person might be interested in magical weapons without being interested in a specific magical weapon. That's why structured lists are useful, particularly if they have annotation. -Chunky Rice 21:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course you don't understand what I'm saying. If you had any idea you would never have supported the creation of the list in the first place. This list is not and cannot be meaningfully annotated, because the members of the list have no meaningful connection. Jay32183 23:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No need to get personal. We're just talking about a Wikipedia article. I don't understand why a short description of each weapon is so outside the realm of possibility, or what constitutes a "meaningful connection" in your mind. -Chunky Rice 23:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        A meaningful connection would be that the items on the list are actually related to each other. You could add a short description but it wouldn't fix the problem. No matter how much text you add, the items on the list are not related to each other. Your argument is based on not knowing the difference between lists and categories. Jay32183 00:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Could you point me towards the guideline or policy that supports your statement? I don't see anything like that in WP:LIST or WP:CAT or WP:CLS. I think that would help me see what you are talking about. -Chunky Rice 00:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:NOT#DIR. This is a collection of loosely associated topics. Jay32183 01:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So what you are saying to readers is "Here is a list of loosely associated topics, we won't give you any annotations to distinguish one from another, but feel free to click on titles at random or go through all of them one by one." Kappa 07:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        So, how does that make a category appropriate? -Chunky Rice 13:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That question would really be an argument against a category, not for a list. Are you sure you want to make it? Jay32183 18:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        (outdent). Aren't you the one who said that this should be a category instead of a list? All I'm asking is what makes a category superior for this particular topic. To which I've not really received a satisfactory answer. -Chunky Rice 18:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You have received a satisfactory answer, you just don't care. This is a navigational aide and can only ever be a navigational aide. That what categories are for. Commentary and annotation are not identical concepts. Jay32183 20:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, but in WP:LIST being a navigational aide is one of the express accepted purposes of lists. So why is a category superior? -Chunky Rice 20:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Kesh, Jay32183, and Deckiller. This list is designed to be a navigation aide, which is better served as the already existing categories Category:Fictional weapons and Category:Mythological weapons. These specific weapons are not related to one another in any meaningful way, and, thus, appear to be a directory of loosely associated topics, which Wikipedia is not. Lack of sourcing is also a problem. bwowen talk•contribs 13:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There are some serious flaws with the category system, and due to those flaws, navigation is not better served by them. For example, categories don't exist as integrated structures while lists do. What I mean by this is that categories don't exist as a page you can actually edit - each topic in a category resides as a tag on another page. This makes tracking of edits to a category almost impossible. If an entry disappears, you wouldn't notice it unless you were already very familiar with the cateogry. If an entry is removed from a list, it shows up in the list's edit history. Categories can't be watchlisted like lists can, nor can they be used with Related changes (lists are very useful for tracking changes to the articles listed on them). Maintaining categories is a major pain. Maintaining lists as navigation aides is much easier. Lists can be formatted, categories can't. Lists can be interspersed with images, categories can't. So please, just drop the category vs. list debate - it belongs on the Village Pump policy forum, not here. The list and category systems overlap, and each has its own strengths and weaknesses. The characteristics of one of these systems is no argument for the removal of the other. Both are established subsystems of Wikipedia. Removing a page due to your personal bias toward one subsystem or the other is unacceptable. Just as Wikipedia includes more than one dialect of English (American English, British English, Australian English, etc.), it also includes more than one navigation system. And that's a good thing. Live and let live. The Transhumanist 23:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It's a helpful article. Magnifier 17:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this page more than adequately fulfills the criteria required to be a list on Wikipedia. It's both structured and it provides annotations. I found the list interesting and informative. Are its items trivial, that is, non-notable? No. Excalibur, Narsil, Sting, etc. are quite notable. Keep in mind that role-playing games have extensive coverage on Wkipedia. Being a dungeon master myself, I can tell you that lists like this are even more useful for developing a campaign world and running game sessions than the RPG-component articles (monsters, character classes, etc.) that abound on this unconventional encyclopedia. For example, see rust monster. The Transhumanist 22:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 23:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of weapons in Serious Sam II

Gaming cruft Oscarthecat 21:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP is not a game guide Corpx 02:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Why put this an individual article? This should be mention in part in the main article.--JForget 00:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One article per game is quite enough. Beorhtric 16:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The content is not notable outside of the game; is original research; and is game guide material. Article should therefore be deleted; not merged. --Scottie_theNerd 07:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sudden Strike units

Gaming cruft - "list of vehicles in xxxx" type article - frequently noted as unsuitable for wikipedia Oscarthecat 20:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or shorten and merge with Sudden Strike - its not useful information TubularWorld 21:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP is not the place for game guide content Corpx 02:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delte WP:NOT#IINFO, specifically game guide content. 23:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Clear game guide content; non-notable; original research. No merge is necessary due to the instruction-manual nature of the content. --Scottie_theNerd 08:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Though this debate is tiny, the complete lack of sources in the article weighs heavily for deletion. Xoloz 16:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Trader

Gaming cruft - seems non-notable Oscarthecat 20:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable game element TubularWorld 21:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per reasons listed above. Radagast83 05:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The consensus is that this material is simply unencyclopedic. Xoloz 16:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of One Piece bounties

Unsuitable content for wikipedia - seems to be more for a gaming wiki - characters and associated scores / bounties seem unsuitable to me Oscarthecat 20:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just want to point out One Piece isn't a game, its a manga/anime.Angel Emfrbl 21:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Shorten and re-write so that it does'nt sound so real-world. TubularWorld 21:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of real world coverage of these Corpx 02:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a supporting article/sub article for the One Piece main article. It is mainly an anti-speculation/rumour aid (fake bounties are the most common rumour for One Piece). We could do without it, but it makes life easier as we can track things better with it there. However, it indeed follows little in the way of real life support and thus lacks any reason to be counted as an wikipedian article other then references on the page linked to the series itself as to when they are given. Angel Emfrbl 07:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unsure whether Wikipedia's purpose is to provide rumour aids for games, perhaps a gaming wiki would be a more suitable place? --Oscarthecat 16:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Again I point out One Piece isn't a game... Therefore cannot go on a gaming wikia because it would be out of place there. It does have its own wikia though. Angel Emfrbl 17:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost entirely in-universe, fails WP:WAF. Perhaps transwiki to a One Piece wiki, as it is a nicely presented article. bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 13:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Its already on the One Piece wikia. Angel Emfrbl 17:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Non admin closure. Giggy ^Talk 23:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 1000km of Monza

Article provides little to no context about the race itself. 95% of the article is simply a table on the results of the race, with some statistics thrown in at the bottom. Violates WP:NOT#INFO.

Note: Nomination includes remaining articles in series:

2007 1000km of Valencia
2007 1000km of Nürburgring
2007 1000km of Spa Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep on all articles - These articles are all branches of 2007 Le Mans Series season, showing the results of individual races. Text can certainly be added later to describe the events of the race (a report). This is no different then, for example, 1969 Italian Grand Prix (Formula 1), 2007 Road America 500 (American Le Mans Series), 1992 500km of Magny-Cours (World Sportscar Championship), 2006 Spa 24 Hours (FIA GT), 2002 24 Hours of Le Mans, etc. If individual race results from major motorsports series are not allowed, then someone might want to inform Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport, Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Car Racing because there's going to be a crapload of deleting. The359 20:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To clarify, all the articles I listed above should have race reports discussing what happened in the race. But there are simply too many articles and too little editors to have them all complete yet. All four of the articles listed here as well should have race reports, but simply do not yet. At best this makes these articles stubs. The359 00:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to 2007 Le Mans Series season. No need to have such detailed information, but it is worth covering the individual races in more detail than the main article currently has (perhaps keep the top 3 results for each class...?). JulesH 21:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then, quite frankly, we'd end up with a very large article in 2007 Le Mans Series season that could stand to be branched. As it is now. The359 22:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside my interest and involvement in this subject, I would probably favour a merge with some condensing of the data. Adrian M. H. 21:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, these could be improved pretty easily by writing a detailed race report. They are basically just stubs now (with the results tacked on the end) but there is room for expansion. Recury 01:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. These are notable events in a major racing series that had significant press coverage thoughout the world. These articles need to be expanded to state what happened at the event, not deleted. As indicated above, adding individual race reports for major racing series to the respective season article would cause the season article to become far too large. Royalbroil 02:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a major sporting event, it merits some coverage. If the current articles aren't up to snuff, fixing the articles is the solution, not deletion. Try using for example {{context}}. FrozenPurpleCube 02:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at the moment, the article is currently mostly a results table yet the topic provides scope to be expanded to provide a detailed encyclopaedic description of a notable racing event. See [13] for an example of how an article starting as very similar in content to those nominated for deletion has ended up as a featured article. AlexJ 20:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm sure the intention is to add race reports in the fullness of time. Agree with The359's comment about the unsuitability of merging. Maybe mark them as stubs until race reports are added. DH85868993 02:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 05:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juank Air

Game fan cruft - non-notable Oscarthecat 20:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Limited interest article. cruft. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 23:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of real world notability - also not a game guide Corpx 02:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DROD Monsters

Game cruft list - non-notable list of items Oscarthecat 20:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 21:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 21:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DurinsBane87 00:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft per nom. Miremare 01:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Totally useless and non notable cruft list. Giggy ^Talk 23:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rubbish. Fin ©™ 12:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I love DROD, but anything important in this article could easily be incorporated into the main article. Cheers, CP 04:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DROD Elements

Gamecruft - non notable list Oscarthecat 20:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 21:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 21:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DurinsBane87 00:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft per nom. Miremare 01:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Not a game guide Corpx 02:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Totally useless and non notable cruft list. Giggy ^Talk 23:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wikipedia not a game guide. Fin ©™ 12:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I love DROD, but anything important in this article could easily be incorporated into the main article. Cheers, CP 04:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 23:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Electrocution!

non-notability of sinlge album by defunct band Chris 20:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a single review phrased in highly negative terms doesn't make an album notable. JulesH 21:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the band's article.--JForget 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment note that is also up for AfD due to lack of notability, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Shok. Chris 01:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JulesH. --Aarktica 20:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 23:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Borrowing benefits

Delete article that has remained orphaned for a year. Term is not standard in psychology and not worthy of its own article. Doczilla 20:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Refers to a psychological/healing technique. Google search finds it used in sufficient locations in such a context. 69.116.170.120 02:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the anonymous participant notes, Google produces lots of hits. Unfortunately, I doubt any of those I saw would pass tests for verifiability and reliable sources required for articles. --Aarktica 20:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep We many independent reliable sources discussing this movie. That it so far has not happened is not relevant to that. JoshuaZ 15:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Thetan

Nominated for deletion by S. M. Sullivan (talk · contribs) Nomination completed by Dhartung | Talk 21:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No rationale provided for deletion. Last AFD closed only a few months ago. Well sourced article, so WP:CRYSTAL wouldn't apply. Speculations about a possible event can be notable, and in this case seem to be. JulesH 21:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no rationale for deletion given. Article is sourced, crystalballing seems to be at a minimum. --Huon 21:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Yes, it still applies, as this is a rumored movie, with zero actual sources to show it even exists. The article itself states that Cruise's publicist denies its existence. Just because notable sources are repeating the rumor, that does not mean the supposed film is anything more than that: a rumor. Hell, we still delete movies studios have announced are in production, if no shooting has begun nor actors been formally hired. This doesn't even get that far. -- Kesh 23:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Have you actually read WP:CRYSTAL? It says, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." This article is a discussion of whether some development will occur, and is properly referenced, so WP:CRYSTAL doesn't require deletion. JulesH 07:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IF this statement in the article is true: Cruise's representative claims "there’s no such project in the works." If Cruise's representative has denied these reports then how can an article be reliable? If the one person qualified to confirm this film (ie Cruise) is denying this, then its unverifiable. All the sources are referring to the original news report, not the film. Add reliable sources confirming the existence of the project, not the existence of reports about the project, and it can be kept. Crazysuit 02:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article is reliable because it does not state that the film will be produced. It is documentation of the discussions that have taken place in the media, not an article about the film itself. The rumour itself is notable, whether or not the film is ever produced. JulesH 07:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references all date to last December and early January. Tom Cruise's IMDB bio says he's in four upcoming movies, but none about Scientology. I think that if a rumor from months ago was coming to fruition, we would have heard more about it by now. It might be entertaining if the film was produced and became as big of a bomb as Battlefield Earth, but I don't think we have that to look forward to. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per my commentary on the previous AfD for this article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hello crystal ball! I thought WP was supposed to be an encyclopedia of existing knowledge, not an stale rumor mill. --Calton | Talk 01:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the first mention of this 'The Thetan' film was in a British tabloid, from there the story went to FOX and other RS sources, but it was still a tabloid rumor.
Keep Looks like some cofs directed editors want to get rid of some scientology-related wikipedia articles. --Fahrenheit451 19:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise's rep has denied that any such film is in the works. There has been no press release about it. IMO it ain't worth the electrons that it took to post it. I feel sorry for the people who worked on this story, but see no point in keeping it.S. M. Sullivan 05:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by After Midnight (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 21:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muppage

Recommended deletion per WP:NOT#DICT Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 20:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hack pack

Blatant neologism. Appears to be used on one internet website, but not spread outside it. Google has no relevant hits in the few dozen hits for "hack pack." The term doesn't appear in the single External Link provided, and the only reference provided has it listed in the comments to a news article. Deproded by anon, without explanation. (Thanks for that, by the way. I do so love having to go through the whole AfD process for something that doesn't have a WP:SNOW ball's chance of surviving. eaolson 19:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources, fails WP:NEO. --Huon 21:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With the bureaucratic, semi-sadistic comment aside, fails WP:NEO, WP:V, and WP:RS. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 23:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in failing WP:NEO Corpx 02:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to being a neologism without reliable sources, the article had serious WP:BLP problems as well: without naming any sources, it listed dozens of creative individuals as "hacks" who are "lacking an original visual style and/or thematic variety in the choice of their subjects". If Roger Ebert had made such an accusation, we could report it here; but just because "kwisatzhaderach" on AintItCoolNews thinks that so-and-so is a hack doesn't mean that we can, or should, include that opinion in Wikipedia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Without sources it isn't something Wiktionary will want. If references can be found, the article and be undeleted for transwikification. WjBscribe 22:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transaction bible

Dictionary definition, probably a neologism, but it's not in widespread enough use to even figure that out. CitiCat^♫ 19:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikitonary I think it should be moved to our sister dictionary project. - Presidentman 22:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Delete as proposed by Citicat on grounds that the article's content, which is composed of original research, provides insufficient evidence that this term for a bundle of documents is in widespread use outside the specialist legal firms enganged in Mergers and acquisitions. --Gavin Collins 09:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wiktionary The term is commercially well understood by commercial banks and law firms (not just on M&A deals, but on almost all significant transactions), but I cannot imagine that there is enough interesting to say about them to justify an encyclopedia article. "They contain copies of all documents on a transaction. They came into use when modern photocopying became prevalent, and modern tendency has been for them to be electronic rather than paper form." That's about it. --Legis (talk - contribs) 14:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the term may (technically) fall within the definition of a neologism, but I certainly would not view it as violating Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms for the same reason that other commonly understood terms like e-mail, prequel and soccer mom are permissible notwithstanding that they are technically neologisms. I couldn't cite authority for the proposition, but the term has been in common currency at least as long as I have been practising law; I would guess it dates to the 1970s or possible earlier. --Legis (talk - contribs) 14:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wiktionary per Legis. --Aarktica 20:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The burden of WP:NEO is technically not met, since the article has no references that discuss the usage of the term. No objection to future recreation of an article on this, or a Wiktionary entry, when proper references are located. It's not reasonable to expect the closing admin to find proper references. Note this comment from WP:NEO: To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. EdJohnston 22:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 05:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising antiques

Article has existed for over a year, but I can't see it as being anything more than original research. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here beyond original research. CitiCat^♫ 19:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be cleaned up and sourced. Otherwise it falls into the realm of original research. Useight 22:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 04:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roxburgh Homestead Primary School

Delete - looks like it might have been written as a homework assignment by a student. I would tag it for speedy but I found this which indicates the school won a small national award a few years ago, which takes it just out of the realm of speedy. Personally I don't feel that this honorable mention-type of award is such that it gets the school past the notability threshold and so my suggestion to delete. Otto4711 19:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jakew 19:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I removed the homework assignment, and replaced it with a stub. CitiCat^♫ 20:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with more reliable references. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Presidentman 22:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 00:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Roxburgh Park, Victoria per established precedent. TerriersFan 00:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per TerriersFan. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of coverage Corpx 02:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CorpX. --ForbiddenWord 15:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 23:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel (Secret Story)

Doesn't seems in criteria. ~~Will also be~~ Has been deleted from french wiki. ThrillSeeker 19:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no article on the TV series, even. --Dhartung | Talk 19:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is this a joke?--Sefringle^Talk 04:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of things that began as a joke

Unsourced article that fails WP:V and WP:RS. Possible original research. Also, what's a "thing"? What's a "joke"? Well, the article itself is probably a joke as only one user really worked on it Tomj 18:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic. --Dweller 18:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as failure of WP:V. Per nom -- what's a "thing" and what's a "joke" in this context? This article is a joke. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The definition of "joke" is highly subjective. I can say (since I was "there") that the coinage of blog was ha ha only serious, and the first use of "blogosphere" was definitely a joke but it was deliberately and seriously "coined" later. So who is calling it a joke and why? --Dhartung | Talk 19:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's all original research, and there's little or no proof that any of those items actually began as a joke. (With the exception of the Thagomizer, the evolution of which is described in its article.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List doesn't serve any particular purpose per WP:LIST.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Totally unencyclopedic. Hirohisat's.Sockpuppet 19:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like those books of "funny laws" that have no sources, this one takes an interesting concept and wastes it. The idea seems to be that we will look at the blue links and learn more than we're told. Sadly, what we learn is that the article is inaccurate (there is some confirmation for "blog": the story is that Jorn Barger coined the word weblog from "web log", and Peter Merholz noted that it looked like "We 'blog'"). However, the Goodtimes virus was not the first computer virus; the term Thagomizer has gained acceptance as the name for the stegosaurus's tail, but is not the "official name"; the South Park article doesn't confirm the story; and things like Project Steve, Punch Brothers Punch, and the dihydrogen monoxide (H2O, get it?) hoax did not "become real" just because they were created in fun. The only good thing that comes out of this might be that someone will do a redirect of "Punch, Brothers, Punch" to A Literary Nightmare Mandsford 20:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While mildly humorous, it's not really verifiable. Useight 22:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe the creator should move the page to his userspace? Jonj onbt 22:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there's one thing that can be added to the article its itself. - Presidentman 22:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominator's reasons. Brusegadi 23:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThere actually is a potential article here. J.Walter Thomson once commented that "all the best ideas begin as jokes". The frosted light bulb was developed as a result of a prank challenge. And General Gallieni, looking for a way to deploy his Parisian troops to stop the German advance on the Marne, seized on the joking comment of an officer that they could just send the soldiers by taxi-- and did so. I'm sure there are lots more examples. Neutral.Rhinoracer 09:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is this a joke?--Sefringle^Talk 04:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Tenedos. I am protecting the redirect pending a consensus ay Talk:Tenedos for a further move. TerriersFan 00:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bozcaada (district)

PoV Content fork of Tenedos. Also, and I believe largely, a name fork — in opposition to the repeated consensus at Talk:Tenedos and the relevant guideline that Tenedos should be at the name recognized by English-speakers. Delete and salt. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although, given how obscure Tenedos is to an English speaker in the first place, I wouldn't oppose an actual move to Bozcaada. —Verrai 23:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Depends on one's background. To English majors, it is important that Shakespeare uses Tenedos; to classicists, Tenedos is expected. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Per the rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milky Studio, only more so. Sandstein 20:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Bunny

This studio's page here only consists of a brief identifier of what the term is (an anime porn studio) and a catalog of their material - with a blurb that their website disappeared. No other details available. Clean it up or delete it. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it is expanded to beyond a directory entry Corpx 02:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep despite general crappiness of the article, it would seem that the studio is behind most of the biggest anime porn titles ever made. And the genre is a lot more popular than you might think. Eleland 14:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Per the rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milky Studio, only more so. Sandstein 20:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Pineapple

The article only defines what the name points to (an anime studio), a catalog of their productions, and a link to the web address. That's it. No history, nothing. Either clean it up and improve it, or delete it. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Sorry, but I've seen one-sentence articles before. That's no reason to delete. Seems notable from the glance I've seen, since a lot of songs are blue-linked. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 23:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somebody cares to expand this article. As of now, it is basically a directory entry Corpx 02:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I agree that it should be cleaned up and expanded accordingly. - Ariolander 04:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

28 Slices Later (Short Film)

Non-notable film. Oli Filth 18:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Student film, not even finished in post production yet. No way is this notable. JulesH 21:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would qualify for speedy for failing to even attempt an assertion of notability, if not for the lack of a criteria for movies. Reso lute 02:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Student short animation film in production. Prod removed by article's creator with this explanation. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. This is entirely original research, there is nothing close to reliable third-party coverage on the subject and this is borderline deletable as spam. This short is in production and there are no current plans for distribution. It's one student film among gazillions of student films. Pascal.Tesson 19:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly non notable student film. Prod removal also not good enough. Giggy ^Talk 23:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Pascal.Tesson and WP:OR. Neranei (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all of the above. Non notable and unsourced. ♠TomasBat 00:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Items in Zork

Gamecruft non-notable list Oscarthecat 18:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is like those silly "List of weapons in Foo" articles. Indiscriminate. Axem Titanium 20:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see no sources, nor any hope of such aside from the game itself. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Feed it to the grue. Acroterion _(talk) 02:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - trust me, there are tons of sources (i'm on my phone or i'd provide), but no amount of sources would make this notable or not gameguide info. loved the games (still do), but this list can go the way of magic in the g.u.e., as its time has passed. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 15:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. It is important to note that the sole source for this article does not use the term that is the article's title. The argument that this article comprises WP:OR thus has great empirical support. To Catch A Predator, notable here in the US, clearly shows that this practice exists, but (as an article describing it), this content fails WP:OR. Xoloz 16:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pedo-baiting

1. Fails notability. More accurate material can be found @ Anti-pedophile activism.

2. Poorly written. Confuses pedophiles (persons attracted to prepubescent youth) with those who seek to find teens online for erotic purposes.

3. Seems to have been created to promote a deleted website called pedobaiting.com (ref now removed).

4. Just redirect it to Anti-pedophile activism. ●Farenhorst 18:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (do I need to say?) ●Farenhorst 18:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you don't. Nomination is automatically considered a vote for deletion unless you specifically say you're a neutral nominator. deranged bulbasaur 19:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Per nom. Needless to say, the title is rediculous. Tomj 18:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then redirect to Anti-pedophile activism, per number four above. There's not much worth merging into the redirect target. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism and original research, particularly the part about blackmailing pedophiles. --Farix (Talk) 18:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any relevant material into anti-pedophile activism and redirect the page there, SqueakBox 19:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO - lack of "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term" Corpx 02:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly merge any sourcable content to somewhere appropriate; certainly doesn't deserve its own article.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anti-pedophile activism per SqueakBox spazure (contribs) 08:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per SqeakBox Ospinad 14:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of korfball clubs

This article consists almost entirely of external links and redlinks, with only two entries linking to Wikipedia articles and no indication that any of the listed clubs are individually notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. A dmoz link from the Korfball article might be a preferable way of providing this information. Suggest deletion per WP:NOT#LINK. --Muchness 17:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete big lists of external links are covered by WP:NOT a web directory. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A3 (no content). So tagged. Such an article can bypass AFD entirely. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have you thought this through? I guess it could be merged into Korfball, which is a real sport, somewhat like basketball, and more popular in Europe and for women players. However, the Korfball article is already fairly large, since there are rules to be explained and a history as well. I understand the point about it being a bunch of external links (for those who don't know, links to the websites for each club), but I would well prefer that to a list of red-links and... UGH!!... individual articles about every friggin' korfball club. Forget any talk about bypassing AfD with a little tag, not impressed, that shoulda been done before the discussion began. But now that discussion's begun, I say that if you blow this dandelion to bits, you'll end up creating a lawnful of weeds. Mandsford 20:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. The nominator failed to show how the topic is "non-notable". @pple 09:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Janapar

Non-notable hiking trail.¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 17:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No technical reason for deleting. Could become part of a network of articles. ●Farenhorst 18:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree. No technical reason for deleting. Article can be expanded to address Luke's issue. --RaffiKojian 13:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as non-notable in its current state. Luke! 18:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'd happily vote keep if reliable sourcing can be found. Hiking trails can be either very notable or not at all notable, we need sources to determine which. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable trail/road. Expansion will be addressed. --Vonones 04:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is it notable? As of now, there is no assertation of notability. The closing admin should take this into account. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 00:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of war metal bands

None of the listed bands has an article, and "war metal" is not a genre. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 17:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure cruft. Lugnuts 19:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly hoax and certainly fails WP:V.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was going to nominate this myself for lack of sources and the fact that 95% of the bands that were listed there were red-linked. --Leon Sword 22:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "war metal" is not a genre and can't be verified as a result.--PrestonH 02:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Minimal debate; but, as her only works are self-published, and the article's sources are not reliable, and one "source" is the Amazon.com sales page for her book, this article is nearly CSD G11 anyway. Xoloz 16:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terri Grimes

Author whose claim to notability is several self-published books with few reviews or mentions, other than a couple of blogs. - Fordan (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete author with no apparent publication besides self-publications. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per the article talk page, there is supposed to be an article/cover story appearing in an upcoming issue Carmel Magazine, a local magazine. I don't believe this single mention is enough, especially since it doesn't exist yet, but wanted to add it to the discussion. - Fordan (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources establishing notability are forthcoming. Nuttah68 12:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Certainly a close case per Sjakkalle, but the community's consensus is clear. With more mainstream press sources, consensus would very likely change. Xoloz 16:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mig Greengard

A guy who has a website. His site, chessninja.com, has an Alexa ranking of 268,939 and fails WP:WEB. He himself fails WP:BIO: the article does not claim notability and I can find no coverage of Greengard by independent, reputable secondary sources. Skarioffszky 17:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jonjonb t 17:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no assertation of notability based on the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - where do we stop with self promotion if we allow this to stand? He's looking for traffic. ●Farenhorst 18:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, clearly meets A7.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability SyG 19:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not speedy. The person has some non-trivial mentions about him in the publication New in Chess (See story here), and he is a regular chess columnist on the fairly large site Chess Cafe ([14]), and received a nomination for Chess Journalist of the Year ([15]). Enough? Not sure, in my opinion writing well about chess does not confer the same notability as becoming a grandmaster or winning a championship, but there is enough merit to warrant some discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - thanks for pointing out that Chess Journalist of the Year nomination, Sjakkalle. Before I nominated the page for deletion I searched a bit for coverage of Greengard by independent sources but I must have missed that one. As for the New in Chess article, I'm not completely sure I would describe an interview that opens with "What is your favorite color?" and follows up with "What is your favorite kind of food?" as "non-trivial"... Skarioffszky 10:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, most people who wind up interviewed on the back cover of New in Chess are notable, although being interviewed by them does not really make a person notable. (They don't get notable from being interviewed, they are interviewed because they are notable.) To be fair, the interview does ask a more chess-related question like "What is the best chess game you played?", but I'll grant you that the interview is too laid-back and informal to be even a moderately serious source. (But I have a soft spot for that interview because Magnus Carlsen mentioned yours truly as the "most original" chess player he had ever seen in another interview of the same publication...) Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You should not say things like that on the Internet, because it just made me rush onto my pile of New in Chess looking frantically for the issue with Carlsen, and now I know your name! Big Brother is watching you :-) Anyway, applause for having impressed a future world champion! SyG 12:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VERY VERY STRONG KEEP I am speaking here as an avid chess fan, and I have to assure you, Mig Greenard is a VERY very well known chess journalist, being personal friends with Garry Kasparov. His blog on chess is also quite well known among chess fans. He is definitely a notable person. --¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 03:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I am an avid chess fan as well, so I would agree with Sjakkalle and Exir Kamalabadi that Mig is a journalist well-known among chess competitors, that he is personal friend with Kasparov and that he has a blog. Does it make him notable ? Maybe it is just a matter of taste but for me, sorry guys, it does not. SyG 08:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete somewhat well known in the chess world, but not the subject of nontrivial coverage from reliable mainstream sources. Eleland 22:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. communities with African American majority populations

Article has an arbitrary (50%) inclusion criteria and has a very confusing flow. Article would be better of being an image color coding ethnic composition based on data like this: Image:New 2000 black percent.gif. -- Cat ^chi? 16:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep. It's somewhat interesting, but I'm not sure it meets WP:LIST. It's certainly sourcable.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The criterion looks fine to me. Majority means over 50%, last time I looked. Clarityfiend 20:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Unlike the article about U.S. communities with non-Hispanic Caucasian majorities, or whatever it was called, this one is sourced straight from the 2000 United States Census. Would that all of our articles were that well sourced. I agree that 50 percent isn't arbitrary, since that's the definition of a majority. Given that African Americans make up only 12.3 percent of the U.S.A.'s population, the fact that a municipality has a 50% black majority is significant. Finally, it's an illustration of the distribution of race between a city and the neighboring towns. Before Ray Nagin said it about New Orleans, our nation's capital used to be cynically described as "the chocolate city with the vanilla suburbs", and that can be said about many of the largest U.S. cities. Mandsford 20:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, topic long covered by reliable sources, including a TIME cover story among countless other publications. While an image could easily enhance the article, and I would prefer a criterion such as "municipalities" or "metropolitan statistical areas", there is clear notability. --Dhartung | Talk 21:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, arbitrary inclusion criteria are acceptable for lists. 50% doesn't seem particulary arbitrary in any case. Kappa 22:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument, but List of U.S. communities with caucasian majority populations is also nominated for deletion. Dbromage [Talk] 00:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The difference is that whites as described by that article make up the majority of the US population, whereas blacks are less than 13%.Brusegadi 01:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourced and meets the guidelines in WP:LIST. —C.Fred (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per C.Fred. --Acntx 10:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability established by reliable sources, as noted above. Tarc 17:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung (aha! I knew Richmond was on this list, I just didn't have proof until now -- RVA ftw!) spazure (contribs) 08:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When exactly did "more than half" become an "arbitrary" interpretation of "majority"? Beorhtric 16:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a definition of "majority" other than "the subset of a group that is more than half of the entire group" that only you are privy to? Tarc 15:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft of Ace Combat 3

In-universe list of fictional aircraft and fictional variants of real aircraft. Violates WP:NOT#INFO. Also no references, WP:N, WP:V, WP:FICTION. Miremare 16:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwikied -Delete I moved the article to the Encyclopedia Gamia. The link is [Ace Combat 3: Electrosphere/walkthrough here] if anyone wants to modify it. So it can now be deleted from wikipedia --Cs california 05:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the game is certainly notable, and the information contained herein is too. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information is irrelevant here because this is none of those five points mentioned. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 17:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:NOTINHERITED. Miremare 17:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But it still doesn't change the fact that it is not a violation of WP:NOT. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 17:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a pretty indiscriminate list in my view, therefore a violation of WP:NOT. Miremare 23:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Miremare 17:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is in serious need of a rewrite, so that it is actually about the game and not just the aircraft in it, but the topic itself is notable and doesn't justify deletion.--Danaman5 17:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There already is an article about Ace Combat 3, so there is no need to rewrite this "so that it is actually about the game". 213.201.189.242 18:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete - Sorry, when I first read this, I somehow came to the conclusion that "Aircraft of Air Combat" was the name of the game. I don't know what I was thinking, but seeing it again, definitely delete.--Danaman5 04:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is like those silly "List of weapons in Foo" articles. Indiscriminate. Axem Titanium 20:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just another totally unencyclopedic video game list. DurinsBane87 00:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Axem Titanium 20:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE. A list of units/maps etc from a game is stuff found on a game guide Corpx 02:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fin ©™ 13:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an indiscriminate list of game-guide information. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both. Although the numbers here would lead one to conclude that the consensus is keep, the strength of arguments, as grounded in policy, leads to a consensus of delete. In the event that sources emerge for one or both new seasons, the proper recourse is a DRV to restore the deleted content, or simply to create new articles using those sources. If I see any such sources, I will file the DRV myself.--Chaser - T 03:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Idol (Season 2)

Article is about an unconfirmed show. Should be deleted per WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). -Danngarcia 16:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to nominate the following article with the same reason:

Philippines' Next Top Model, Cycle 2

Just redirect them respectively to Philippine Idol and Philippines' Next Top Model. Idol seems to have the go-signal, though. --Howard the Duck 17:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Philippine Idole season 2 if deleted it will easily be recreated since it is a real show plus the second season is coming which ISN'T CRYSTAL BALLING. Delete the other per it makes no sense.--Hornetman16 ^(talk) 17:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Howard. Just in case they push through --Lenticel ^(talk) 19:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you not read a word I said?--Hornetman16 ^(talk) 12:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or nominate [[American Idol (season 7)] ,which is another show that is yet to air, for deletion. To do otherwise is to show systemic bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KTo288 (talk • contribs) 18:46, August 23, 2007 (UTC). (Apologies for forgetting to add my signature)KTo288 21:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Philippine Idol's mother network (ABC) haven't announced anything about a 2nd season of Philippine Idol. There are no press releases or advertisements when will it start. Same situation for the PNTM's cycle 2 article. -Danngarcia 18:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Xoloz 16:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Connie Talbot

This girl entered a televised talent competition, and she didn't win. She has absolutely no notability independent of Britain's Got Talent, as far as I can see, and there has been debate as to whether she can be considered notable. However, during the few weeks that this programme was on, she was well known throughout Britain, the tabloids lapped her up, she appeared on national television both on BGT and on other programmes. However, in just the same way, the tabloids don't shut up about the Big Brother contestants, and we only allow articles for them if they prove themselves notable outside of the programme, which, as far as I can see, Connie has not. I am personally undecided on this article, and I think bringing it here should put an end to the debate. J Milburn 16:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - is the media circus surrounding her annoying? That's a big resounding yes. Does that make her notable? Unfortunately so. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 17:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It's advisable to keep a long term perspective: the encyclopedia is not being created just for perusal in the immediate future, but is rather supposed to catalog topics that in some way have lasting notability that transcends their temporal circumstances. I don't see that this has notability of the requisite sort. The only attention she got was tied up in the game show, and she lost. As I see it, there's not much to distinguish this from all the other losing game show contestants that have been deleted. Being a contestant on a game show, without any other achievement in particular, is practically the exemplar of transient notability. deranged bulbasaur 17:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has no long-term historical notability and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for repeating what's in the tabloids. And, ah, I'm afraid I missed the coverage of Connie and had no idea who she is, which probably demonstrates that she is not as well-known throughout Britain as some might think. --Malcolmxl5 18:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Her notability is annoying, and her prospects for long-term persistence is dubious, but WP:MUSIC is very straightforward about inclusion criteria:

1. "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable."

Unfortunately, she meets it ([16] [17] [18]) -Seidenstud 18:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't think she should be considered under WP:MUSIC as her musical performance was just a feature on a game show. That aside, even though guidelines should be followed in most cases, they are not canon and we don't have to adhere to them if their consequences are "unfortunate" esp. when such consequences run contrary to the aims of the project with respect to coverage. deranged bulbasaur 19:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks to youtube.com I was able to hear Connie Talbot sing; thanks to wikipedia.org I was able to find out a bit more about this impressive six year old girl. Wikipedia was the first hit when I typed Connie's name in Google. I agree this Wikipedia entry will enventually need to be enhanced or deleted, but today I was thankful her name was listed. You never know what people will add to a Wikipedia entry until you get one started. Wikipedia is an incredibly powerful and appreciated gathering place for information from around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.111.192 (talk • contribs)
- It seems you like it. deranged bulbasaur 19:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or, failing that, delete. No real independent notability yet, fails WP:MUSIC.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep She has a Youtube video [19] from the preliminary contest with well over 8 million views, and several others totalling collectively in the millions as well. As an internet meme, she thus beats out Bus uncle and Obama girl who appear to have had fewer views of their Youtube appearances. She lost the final, but got a fair amount of press coverage for the cancelled record deal, with surprisingly, little about the actual appearance or the Youtube phenomenon. Multiple independent and reliable substantial coverages would satisfy WP:N. The Mail in June talked about her in the competition and said "On Monday night, seven million viewers saw her sing 'Somewhere Over The Rainbow' at the reality show's Birmingham auditions. She received a standing ovation and left the programme's three judges, Cowell, Amanda Holden and Piers Morgan, speechless". [20]. [21] from Express and Star says she "reduced millions of viewers to tears with her version of Somewhere Over The Rainbow, which also became an overnight hit on internet site YouTube." The Philadelphia Inquirer online site [22] and Reuters Canada [23] say that Billboard had a story about Simon Cowell cancelling her record deal. Clearly if she had won the competition, or had a successful recording career, it would be an easier call. Edison 19:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 8 Million? Wow. deranged bulbasaur 19:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you think big numbers are meaningless, you should rush to delete Obama Girl and Bus uncle for their WP:SMALLERNUMBERS. No wait, they got kept in AFDs largely because of their WP:BIGNUMBERs (which is just an essay, not a policy or guideline), so that must count for something toward notability after all, at least for internet memes. Being covered in Billboard [24] and the other press coverage of the competition goes a way toward satisfying WP:MUSIC criterion 1, which is basically the primary notability criterion. Edison 20:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Waxing eloquent about big numbers? deranged bulbasaur 20:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, there are sources, but these sources seem to be directly related to Britain's Got Talent. Does she really have independent notability? J Milburn 20:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If you read the sources cited here and at the article, you find multiple with substantial coverage of her performance (as opposed to passing reference in an article about the show) and about her offered-then-cancelled record deal, which is again about her and not about the show. Edison 20:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - she could be notable if she does something newsworthy not related to the show Corpx 02:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Britain's Got Talent, or Delete. No notability outside of the show. If she ever does anything notable other than being a contestant on a TV talent show then she can have her own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazysuit (talk • contribs)
STRONG Delete. She is somebody who entered a talent contest and lost and, er, that's it. She has achieved nothing at all. IF she does, she will warrant an entry; until she does, she doesn't warrant an entry.87.127.44.154 07:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Anyone who has commented here may also be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bessie Cursons. J Milburn 12:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as newsworthy but not notable. If she ever becomes known as any other than as a failed reality show contestant an article can be created. Nuttah68 12:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus as far as notability is concerned, but nonetheless speedily deleted as blatant advertising, i.e., an article that reads like a sales flyer and would need a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic. Sandstein 20:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LogMeIn

Strong keep. LogMeIn's software is very widely used for remote support purposes.It has advantages over traditional remote access tools in that it does not require an open port for incoming connections. The article as it stands is poor but there is a notable subject here. I would like to see the article recast as being about the software not the comapny. --DanielRigal 16:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per above comment. The article may require a clean up, but LogMeIn is a notable subject. I am the person who persuaded Carlos to undelete an article (I am not however an original author). Alex Pankratov 17:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article reads like an advertisement, and does nothing to establish the notability of the topic. How many people use this company's software? Has it been featured in any tech magazines or other outside sources?--Danaman5 18:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know it is not good. I am working on improving it as we speak. I think I am making progress. --DanielRigal 19:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There's a reason why the deletion was overturned. Perhaps non notable a year ago, but certainly relevant now. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 20:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where was the deletion overturned? Carlossuarez46 17:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepItIn. Plenty of reviews,[25][26][27]. (I'm using it myself. It's worth every penny I didn't pay.) Clarityfiend 20:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep, but fix - right now this article is nearly a candidate for db-spam. I think a real article can be made, but it's not there now. --Rocksanddirt 23:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMHO it's been notable for at least a year ... richi 01:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix. Addaone 22:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as written in spite of references, it still reads as advertisement. Unless it is rewritten, it is fatally flawed. Wikipedia is not spam. MarkinBoston 02:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to tidy it up and I think it is much better than it was initially. I know it isn't perfect, and I am going to have another go at it, but really don't see any valid comparison to Spam. If people could give some more specific feedback, or just edit the article, I am sure we can get it up to scratch. --DanielRigal 19:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, the article still fails to establish notability. The only claim of notability I could find is an unsourced claim in the lead that 20 million people use the software. It seems that everyone else has heard of this software, so there must be some better evidence of notability that you can put in.--Danaman5 04:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the reviews would be enough as they are from mainstream IT publications. They also have a couple of "editor's choice" type awards and some very major companies on their customer list. I didn't want to add this in case it made the article sound more "spammy". Do you think I should? I have had a quick look for critical/negative coverage but not found any. I will add a reference to the 20 million, anyway. --DanielRigal 11:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Clearly notable, major player in the field of remote assistance. Also to me doesn't read like an advertisement (perhaps because it has now been cleaned up?). 86.3.141.205 23:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:V. Sandstein 19:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking blend

This article has been tagged unreferenced since October 2006. A google search for herbal smoking blends results in a deluge of commercial websites, without a reliable source in sight. Attempting to remove the shops doesn't bring any reliable sources to the fore. In light of the lack of such sources, this fails the verifiability standard. deranged bulbasaur 16:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not verifiable due to lack of reliable sources.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on grounds that this is a non-notable negolism. --Gavin Collins 12:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
week keep article needs a complete re-write and a new name but subject content is worthy of an article - just not this one. 87.127.44.154 06:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Lakes, Dubai

No notability has been established. This development is just a common day mixed use commercial and residential complex that has no notability. Luke! 16:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages created by the same editor within days of each other because they are all mixed use developments in Dubai consisting of several towers that have no established notability:

Delete All - Being listed in Emporis is not notability. Unless more evidence of notability can be provided, I say the articles should be deleted. Brusegadi 23:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless significant coverage is found from reliable sources Corpx 02:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Delete All on grounds of no spam allowed. Wikipedia is not a real estate listing website for new developments, no matter how new, large or exciting they may seem to their promoters. --Gavin Collins 12:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 00:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interwise

Tagged for deletion via WP:PROD in Aug 2007 despite previous discussion at AFD in Jan 2006; prior AFD ended in 'no consensus'. Current re-nomination for deletion via PROD comes with the reason: "Not notable, article hasnt been updated, advertisement." Looking at the History, I'll attest to the fact that other than some re-wording, little has changed with the article and it remains a stub without citations supporting notability; rather than an ad, I would say the entry reads like a directory entry. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NOTE and WP:SPAM unless some references comfirming notability are provided. Nuttah68 12:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. --Aarktica 20:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. @pple 09:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cruachan (band)

Non-notable band. Only reference is their official webpage, so they fail WP:V. A Google search shows almost nothing related to them. Delete. Boricuaeddie 16:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, they are notable for their unique blend of Irish/Celtic traditional music and heavy metal. The article needs to be expanded. Their MySpace page has been visited 34487 times so they're not an insignificant metal band. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 17:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. We've reached a point where we're using myspace page hits and number of friends to establish notability. Incredible. Anyone can create a myspace page and claim to be a band. Myspace is not a reliable source. Do you have any sources or proof to show that they're "unique"? --Boricuaeddie 17:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Don't be silly, I did not use MySpace as a reliable source of information, just as an indication of the popularity of a band, like many editors use google hits. I found several articles of amateurish bands with links to MySpace pages which were visited +/- 400 times, then you know the band is not that popular. It's just an indication. Now to answer your question; there are tons of sources, you could have found them yourself...
  
  Here we go:
  
  [28] "Irish Black-Folk Metallers CRUACHAN debuted with the 1995 'Tuatha Na Gael' album and soon made a keen impression on the European Metal scene with their distinct brand of mythological branded music."
  
  [29] "Ireland's Cruachan isn't the world's first, nor the world's only "folk metal" band ... but they have arguably gone to the greatest lengths of anyone in their attempts to expand this still largely unexplored subgenre."
  
  [30] "Of the few bands that profess to be folk metal, Cruachan is arguably the folkiest -- many bands in this field are first and foremost metal bands with varying folk influences, but Cruachan almost does it the other way around, as their heavily Celtic folk aspect is as predominant as the metal aspect in their sound."
  
  [31] "Cruachan have a unique sound, and this is an interesting and enjoyable CD."
  
  [32] "Cruachan is one of the longest active bands that blend metal with folk"
  
  __
  
  And I can find more. Cheers, Emmaneul ^(Talk) 21:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  I seriously doubt the reliability of those sites. Anyway, they don't prove they meet WP:MUSIC. You're going to need more proof than that if you're trying to convince me that they meet WP:MUSIC#C7. --Boricuaeddie 21:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Cruachan definitely meet WP:MUSIC#C7 - the "notable style" here would be Celtic metal, local scene of a city I guess would be the Irish metal scene in general. I know this isn't a particularly great indicator, but if you look at folk metal bands from Ireland on MetalStorm, you'll see that Cruachan is the biggest, with 35 fans. Primordial have only 23. MetalStorm doesn't consider other Irish folk metal bands to be even big enough to be worth listing. You'll see similar trends if you look at last.fm: Cruachan page has 376,979 plays and Primordial have 198,868 plays. Smaller bands like Geasa and Waylander have only 11,007 and 38,010 respectively. I think it's fair to say that Cruachan "has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city" - that scene/style being Irish metal/Celtic metal, and therefore meeting WP:MUSIC#C7. Defintely a Strong Keep. TheguX 22:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  And that's only #C7. Leon Sword correctly pointed out that the band would also meet WP:MUSIC#C5. TheguX 22:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  
  See also the celtic metal tag page on last.fm - Cruachan are the top artist tagged as "celtic metal" by a mile. TheguX 02:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This band clearly meets criteria #5 under WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. The band has released two or more albums through Hammerheart Records/Karmageddon Media. Furthermore, this band also meets criteria #1. You can see examples of independent third party sources above. This AfD appears to be a good candidate for the snowball clause. --Leon Sword 22:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Barely. But merge the members! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 04:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the reason for the Google search showing up very little referring to the band is because Cruachan is also the name of a place in Ireland. Searches like cruachan band, cruachan metal and cruachan music show up much more relevant results. "Cruachan music" even finds a link to a Cruachan page on Google music. I think it's clear that Cruachan are in fact a notable band, and meet more than one of the criteria in WP:MUSIC. TheguX 02:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merge the members' articles, though. The external sources provided above show that they have received some coverage, and thus meet WP:MUSIC #1 and #5 at least. Neranei (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete page up since April, 2005, still no independent references on the page. That tells me something. Wikipedia doesn't work on trust. MarkinBoston 02:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep but tidy up and incorporate sources and band members. 87.127.44.154 06:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, partly by strength of arguments regarding notability and deletion policy.Chaser - T 03:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B G Mahesh

WP:COI the article has been created by a user whose only edit is this and by a user having the same user name as the article with few edits other than this.It is about the user who has started a company .Notablity is questionable Pharaoh of the Wizards 16:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:AUTOBIO. Fails notability and NPOV. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The India Today, Computers Today and Businessworld pieces on this person are multiple secondary reliable sources. The WP:AUTOBIO guideline (not policy) stipulates that people should "avoid" writing about themselves, but it's not set in stone. Just because the subject contributed to the article doesn't negate the fact the person passes both WP:BIO and WP:N. By the way, why is this in the "Places and transportation" category? --Oakshade 16:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to the Biographical category. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. subject may be notable but the article is an advert/spam full of weasel words. It could be re-written; but I doubt he has sufficient notability outside India for somebody to do this. 87.127.44.154 06:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs cleaning up but the sources more than establish notability. Nuttah68 12:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade. --Aarktica 20:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 05:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marketa Brymova

No assertion of notability for this non-notable porn actress. Fails all criteria for inclusion, including WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. Valrith 16:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; no evidence of notability in article. Tabercil 16:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Harlowraman 16:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 16:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "keep" side argues that this studio has produced notable porn, the "delete" side points out that the article lacks any sources except for a link to the studio's website. The latter argument, unlike the former, is based in unambiguous policy. WP:V, a foundation-level policy, mandates reliable independent sources, which this article utterly lacks. This also precludes any assessment of notability under any of our notability guidelines. Sandstein 19:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milky Studio

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Milky Studio

So far as I'm concerned, this article should NOT be deleted, but has been speedy deleted twice so far. I pretty much based this off of Pink Pineapple and Green Bunny, which nobody has a bug up their ass about. Feel free to make a WP:POINT and nom them too. Snarfies 15:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aren't you actually looking for deletion review, down the hall two doors on the right? --Dhartung | Talk 15:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for having no assertion of notability, no coverage in WP:RS, etc. Valrith 16:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NN and provides no WP:RS. It's a redlink farm filled with weedy WP:SPAM, intended to grow and grow and . . . . --Evb-wiki 16:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Pink Pineapple and Green Bunny should also go. --Evb-wiki 16:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to have produced some notable animation. Needs to be sourced and fleshed out into an actual article rather than a big list of productions though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:A7. Doesn't assert notability, and is pretty much just fancruft. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - correct me if I'm wrong, but since this is a stub, shouldn't it be ineligible for WP:Speedy? --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Stubs are speediable, but I think most would agree that production of a number of notable anime pushes this company out of speedy territory. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, but not speedy. Most of the content is redlinked, but I'm not seeing notability here either - what else do we know about this studio? Note to the nom: your commentary in the opening blurb is sheer dickitude - please do not be a dick. Thank you. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep particularly for it's role in producing one of the more well known pornographic anime, Bible Black. However, the article could use sourcing and needs to be less of a link farm. --Farix (Talk) 19:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somebody can expand the article using reliable sources. As of now, it is basically a directory entry Corpx 02:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has notable animation, particularly the aforementioned Bible Black. Does need serious cleanup, however, as it's just a directory of redlinks right now. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Clean-up per Farix and Sephiroth BCR. Producing one of the most well known pornographic animes, Bible Black is certainly grounds for notability. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 15:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that it should be cleaned up and expanded accordingly.--十八 16:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... but expand. How does WP:A7 work, exactly? Can the works be notable enough to warrant an article, but not its creators?--Nohansen 17:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 23:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kneale Mann

I tried to gently PROD this article, but the tag was removed within minutes, so here we go with an AfD.

The article does not meet WP:BIO. There is no indication that the person has been the subject of any independent secondary sources asserting his notability.

Based on the edit history, this also appears to be a vanity article. Although autobiographies are not strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, WP:AUTO states that they are "highly discouraged". Combined with the lack of notability of the subject, the reasons suggest that the article should be deleted. Skeezix1000 14:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like a resume, and fails to establish notabilty. Resolute 15:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - couldn't find anything notable from a quick Google search. Luke! 15:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G1. --GreenJoe 16:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I do remember Kneale Mann from when he was on CFNY, purely local radio personalities just aren't particularly encyclopedic. Delete. I'd also like to call attention to the fact that the article's entire text has now been changed to "information deleted". Bearcat 08:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 02:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remi Broadway

lacks nobility, does not meet requirements for BIO, advertising reads like resume. Delete does not meet requirements for TOW. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Apelike (talk • contribs).

Comment The AfD was not properly linked. I have corrected this. Cheers, Resolute 15:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As an Australian actor of stage and screen, Broadway seems to be borderline notable, but I haven't formulated an opinion yet. I would like to point out, however, that Apelike is a single purpose account; and his comments made here bear a striking resemblance to those made here by a user who was subsequently banned for using multiple accounts to put forward bad faith edits related to YouTube celebrities. There's a real animosity toward YouTube celebrities, cultivated at Encyclopedia Dramatica, 4chan and elsewhere. Broadway's connection to Caitlin Hill, as well as his status as a modestly popular YouTube user in his own right, would be enough to set it off. To my mind, there's a good chance this is a bad faith nom. ichor}mosquito{ 21:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A celebrity is a widely-recognized or famous person who commands a high degree of public and media attention. Your "YouTube Celebrity" argument is a fallacy. While I could see a publication using that term, it's rather absurd at best. Apelike 00:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not arguing he's a YouTube celebrity. Ichormosquito 02:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- ichor}mosquito{ 22:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Admittedly a minor celebrity and a minor actor in some mot very memorable series and movies, but he did receive a fair bit of coverage when the "Piffy" segment was shown on The Late Show in 1993. He hosted the Prime Possum childrens show on Australian television. Most notable role appears to be as Murray Rose in Swimming Upstream. Past news coverage as cited by Ichormosquito appears to confirm at least tenuous notability. Dbromage [Talk] 00:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given the nominator's short history and largely a SPA with animosity towards YouTube vloggers, I'm prepared to call this a bad faith nom. Dbromage [Talk] 00:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough for a stub, which is the current state of the article. I wouldn't know where to look for more Australian sources than I've already found in my comment above; but he has had significant roles in notable television shows, which satisfies a condition at WP:BIO. The Wayne Manifesto won an AFI Award. And I know it's not much, but he has name recognition among YouTube addicts. ichor}mosquito{ 03:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pretty borderline, but harmless as a stub, and would be known to hundreds of thousands of Australians as "Piffy" (which needs explanation in the article by the way, and needs to be sourced). He seems to appear in every film shot on the Gold Coast (The Marine, Scooby-Doo). The Wayne Manifesto should be enough to meet WP:BIO. --Canley 22:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is my belief under good faith that Remi Broadway does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia. The current article is has been a short stub that lacks nobility. If he is indeed significant than keep, otherwise I don't see the point.Apelike 23:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just want to point out to the closing admin that Apelike is the nominator. Ichormosquito 02:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whilst he has generally had supporting roles in his career, he clearly meets WP:BIO as he has had significant roles in entertainment, most notably the Prime Possum Show before 1996. Assize 03:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per arguments raised above, including a few sources which could help remove those {{fact}} buggers. Giggy ^Talk 07:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 23:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TXEQ

This article was deleted] by Isotope23 over one month ago and rapidly re-created one week right after that. This time it was provided with an exlink (regretfully in Armenian) to be more acceptable. An IP (who may understand Armenian) prodded it and said that the exlink doesn't support any information given. Google shows no results for the definition stated in article. Non-notable, no reliable sources. Suggest delete. @pple 14:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better sources are provided. The one given is from an American-Armenian newspaper; even though I can't read it, that can't be the best source for a Yerevan-based organization. --Huon 22:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of coverage from RS Corpx 02:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE as nonnotable, etc. Rlevse 14:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Re-Advocate

A non-notable, bootleg mixtape that has no non-trivial coverage- just a track list. I am nominating these for the same notability issues:

Spellcast 14:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Bootlegs don't deserve Wikipedia pages. --- Realest4Life 14:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No need to delete, it contributes to the complete coverage of an artist and its work, expand instead. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 17:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This can never be expanded from its current state and will never reach good or featured article status. There's no background info, critical reviews, chart positions, or any multiple non-trivial mentions of these tapes. "Non-trivial" meaning it's not the subject of anything beyond a mere track list. If it does even deserve to be mentioned here (which I don't think does), it should be listed in The Game discography at most. See also the deleted Snoop Dogg mixtapes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welcome to tha chuuch mixtape vol.1. Spellcast 18:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above mixtapes (and more) are what I like to call DatPiff mixtapes. Anyone can take a few tracks and call them a mixtape and upload it to that website. Maybe you can add Born in the Bay to this list too. --- Realest4Life 18:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:N says articles need "significant coverage" from sources that "address the subject directly in detail". There are only trivial sources (a track listing), so this is far from "significant coverage". Spellcast 16:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP per national level, but improve. Rlevse 14:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carnelli

This is apparently a popular game at meets of the Metropolitan Washington chapter of MENSA, which numbers some 2,000 people. An accompanying photograph shows the game being played by perhaps a dozen people. Its cultural significance beyond being a nice little parlor game played by a fairly small group of people in one city in one country one one continent is unexplored. I suggest that we either find such significance or delete this article. --Tony Sidaway 14:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's not just in one chapter of Mensa; it's regularly played at national-level Annual Gatherings, and in fact the picture there (which I took) was at such a gathering, with participants from all around the country (and perhaps other countries; there were some foreign Mensans at the gathering too). *Dan T.* 14:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple of references indicating its presence at both a national Mensa gathering and a science fiction convention. *Dan T.* 16:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, sourcing may be an issue, but this is definitely more widespread than the nom suggests. I've run into it at a sci-fi con, for example. --Dhartung | Talk 16:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to both above comments, thanks for the corroboration. However our only reliable source to date is the Washington Metropolitan Area chapter of MENSA. With respect to article content, some improvement on that score would be welcome. --Tony Sidaway 16:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas per nom.Harlowraman 02:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE as non-notable and failing project guides thereof. Rlevse 14:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monique DeMoan

AfDs for this article:

Article doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 14:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.
Delete. No evidence of notability. Tabercil 16:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Legilimensia

Unsourced orphan article about some minor MUD. --Tony Sidaway 14:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. Fails WP:WEB. Resolute 15:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability Corpx 02:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Wolanin

Appears to be a seventeen-year-old singer-songwriter who released some albums through a record label started by her father. There seems to be no evidence of any chart impact or other achievements except through a couple of obscure trade magazines. This is borderline at best, I'd say. --Tony Sidaway 14:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the course of doing research to pave the way for an AfD, I found enough non-trivial media coverage to meet WP:MUSIC criterion #1. I think I've managed to remove most if not all of the puffery (check an earlier version of the article). I did raise questions about the validity of FMQB's charts (I always thought that publication was more of a tip sheet) but even without chart hits, she still passes. I've also tried to balance out the article by including that it's her father's record label, and her lack of sales. While I don't think she really deserves an article, she passes WP:MUSIC so I feel I must argue to keep it. Precious Roy 14:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Calton

Keep - I also think it does pass the WP:MUSIC guidelines for an article. Sintaku 07:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references in the article seem to be independent reliable sources, and there's more than enough of them to assert notability. —gorgan_almighty 15:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. ELIMINATORJR 12:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nik Pace

Prod removed without comment by User:61.238.105.218. (A while ago -- I'm just catching up.) This losing reality show contestant has done no notable modelling work since leaving the show and is now just another struggling model in a very crowded and competitive field. Mikeblas 14:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough significant coverage for her outside the TV show to write an article Corpx 02:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ms. Pace came in second place during her season of ANTM and has gained a reasonable amount of notoriety since the show. -- Thefreemarket 22:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you back that up with coverage from reliable sources? Corpx 00:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coming second on such a well-known competition show is notoriety enough for an article. -- Trojanian 00:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a losing reality show contestant with no other claim to notability. Nuttah68 13:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Corpx Harlowraman 02:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply lacks the RSs attesting to notability. TerriersFan 04:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable person, no RS... G iggy\^Talk 08:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge and redirect to her father, as is standard practice for children of the notable. Xoloz 00:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jang Keum-song

The only apparent claim to notability is that she's the niece of Kim Jong-il, which doesn't seem to be enough to satisfy WP:BIO. PC78 13:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- PC78 14:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not inherited. --Huon 22:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as article creator), notability may not be inherited but it is certainly established by multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, such as those cited in the article and which the nominator gives no valid reason for discounting. Incidentally, notability is inherited in the case of royalty; IMO the Kim clan, as the world's only example of hereditary succession in a communist regime and a large proportion of upper positions in the NK government, are close enough to royalty as makes no difference, but of course this point is more debatable. cab 02:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks to me like the english ref is about her death, which would kind of fall under WP:NOT#NEWS and not really notable for anything else. A merge+redirect to another article might be sufficient Corpx 02:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Chang Sung-taek (her father) would probably be the best target for a merge. cab 03:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know about the Korean ref, but the English article is merely a short account of her suicide, which again is hardly notable in itself. Hereditary succession or not, North Korea has no royal family, ergo she cannot be considered as royalty. At best I can't see the potential for anything other than a short stub here, and the Chang Sung-taek article already seems to have just as much infomation about her as this one does. PC78 06:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Chang Sung-taek and Redirect. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ijin no Mikoyose

To quote the lead section:

An internet fan story called Ijin no Mikoyose (The Necromancy of the Devil) was said to have picked up licensing in Japan for an anime project, and through rumours, has said to have gotten a official cast to work on the project. No more information is known other than the original storyline of the anime project. Future information will be updated as more information is revealed, but so far, none is yet known.

Emphasis mine.

This is pure fluff and should be deleted if further information is not made available very quickly to suggest that this is anything other than an article about an internet rumor. --Tony Sidaway 13:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, delete per nom. --Malcolmxl5 18:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It is said that rumours claim that it violates WP:CRYSTAL at the very least. Clarityfiend 14:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ademokhai

Unsourced orphan living bio. I suggest that we either find reliable sources for this article or delete it. --Tony Sidaway 13:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, and even if sourced, no real claim to notability. I don't think an encyclopedia needs an article on every single military officer, anywhere, ever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very few ghits for "Peter Ademokhai", none I think that might be considered reliable sources, certainly there are not multiple sources. Reading through a few, it seems that he did exist and perhaps is notable in some small way in the history of Nigeria, playing a minor role in the coup of 1985. However, without more reliable and more authoritative sources, this does not meet wikipedia criteria for notability and verifiability. --Malcolmxl5 19:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete....almost CSD because no real claim to notability Corpx 02:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice against a completely rewritten, reliably sourced, NPOV version. — TKD::Talk 23:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brotherhood of the Cross and Star

This appears to be some sort of religious essay. WP:NOT a soapbox or a Chick tract. Deproded by anon. eaolson 13:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Religious advertising by some fringe group, totally unencyclopedic. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --NeilN 14:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & DQ. Provides no WP:RS and is completely WP:OR. --Evb-wiki 14:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic pseudo-religious babble at best, patent nonsense at worst. ProTip: When starting a new religion, first make sure you don't sound like a random streetcorner wacko yelling gibberish at a mailbox. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. suggest Snowball. --Trippz 07:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep but requires a major overhaul. This is an existing African religious movement, not a fringe sect, but the article is clearly more a religious tractate than an article about the movement - Skysmith 20:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 23:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Valley Foods

The purpose of the page appears to be only to advance original research arguments for the organization being a major polluter, based on primary sources. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep (a) This article does describe the products manufactured. (b) It also supplies authoritative sources for the particulate matter the plant produces. If I lived in Pittsburgh, I would want to know about both (a) and (b). In short, this is a good example of the kind of thing that Wikipedia does well. Bellagio99 13:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Corp itself is not notable per WP:CORP, the intentions of the article creator are highly suspect. This is essentially an assassination piece. -- Y not? 14:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently fails WP:CORP. Seems like a smear piece; once we delete the uncited, what's left? -- Mikeblas 14:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep (repeat). I've just edited and reformatted the badly written article. You might want to read again.

: I disagree with some of the above assertions. The article is very well referenced: more than almost any other WP articles I've read. It does describe the products. To be sure, it describes the company's pollution, but this appears to be fact-based and not slanted.

~~: This article belongs in Wikipedia.~~

~~: Please note: I don't live in Pittsburgh, and I don't belong to any organized anti-pollution groups.~~ ~~:Bellagio99 14:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete. The major issue here is not presentation. The material on pollution is a textbook example of original research. No notable secondary sources are cited: the page explicitly presents primary sources, and draws its own conclusions. (Look for sentence beginning "Therefore, this facility".) The source for visible smoke plumes is an email address. The guidelines advise that articles should be based mainly on secondary sources; this helps ensure notability and neutrality. This page is making an argument, not just presenting information. With OR material removed, there's nothing left but a list of products, which is an advertisement. The page fails WP:CORP. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 14:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV-pushing synthesis of primary sources. There are no citations from secondary sources to indicate whether this particular plant's emissions are significantly out of the norm or have caused independent third parties to be concerned. --Dhartung | Talk 16:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I withdraw my previous Keep suggestion. I am persuaded by the arguments here and on the BVF Talk page. Bellagio99 17:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic example of a stealth attack page, complete with poor sourcing: From the article: "nsolic@achd.net can verify this." Readers should not have to email random people to verify content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No material to be salvaged after removing not allowed (unverifiable, original research, stealth attacks) content. User:Krator (t c) 20:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per general guidelines of WP:CORP. youngamerican (wtf?) 01:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - stealth attack page; original research that is not even supported by the citations given; unverifiable sources and no secondary reliable sources (or unreliable - not even a blog post) provided (or found in independent searching) to support claims; potentially libelous; does not meet WP:CORP - and all of the other comments I made into the wee hours last night on the talk page, and the comments made here by an array of editors. Further, based on several comments made by the only contributor to the page - both on its talk page and elsewhere around the encyclopedia - I believe this page was created with political motives as a dirty trick - perhaps to use a Wikipedia article as evidence of claims that seem not to have been reported anywhere else. I am not often in the "delete" camp on Afds, but this is an open-and-shut classic case for deletion and I wholeheartedly endorse the action. Tvoz |talk 02:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)--[reply]

Keep' (a) 'I have added a reference to the Pittsburgh Post Gazette that discusses this facility. One of the main objections is that there is no press for this facility. This article show that this facility is a top emitter from a coal fired furnace. As other documentation in the article show, this facility was owned by Heinz, then Del Monte, Then by Bay Valley Foods. 67.163.247.142 12:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (a) Keep (a) This article is similar to articles for Colgate Polmolive, Crest, Quacker Oats, tic tacs and other major multinational corporations. (b) It also supplies authoritative sources for the sections discussed. The main objection seems to be that Barak Obamas' wife is on the board of directors for the parent corporation, Treehouse Foods. I have striven to produce a good example of the kind of thing that Wikipedia does well. I wish to inform others about this company. Moreover, if you look through the discussion and history, I have been bending over backwards to accomodate the people who are insisting on deleting this article. This company is a major source of the toxins listed. This is not my opinion. It is taken directly from the permit. The permit is not online, but it can be obtained from me or the health department. Is it fair to require that all references be online? What did encyclopedias do before the internet? Other articles about manufacturers describe products and also negative aspects of a company. I had many other sections in this article, but those other sections have been deleted. Please view the history. Some of them can be put back into the article for completeness. The information on pollution is taken directly from the EPA's Toxic Release Information Database. These are not my numbers. The article does not judge the effects of this companies emissions. Instead, it merely quotes the EPA's Envirofact Warehouse's information on Hydrochloric Acid. Nowhere in the article does it mention visible plumes. I believe that there is a concerted effort here to keep this information from the american people. This article was here for months. Yesterday, I added a link from Mrs. Obamas' page to this article. Within an hour, the section on toxins in the Bay Valley article was deleted. An objection is that no notable sources are quoted. I quote the EPA, the permit authority for the county where the plant resides, and I quote the Lexdon Business Library. I never statte that the emissions are outside the norm. Many of these objections are to things that are not stated in the article. Many of these objections are slanderous. 67.163.247.142 02:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note: the above IP address, 67.163.247.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), is the same person as the creator of the article, BmikeSci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - he edits and comments on talk under both identities interchangeably. Tvoz |talk 02:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that I use the pronoun I in my defense here. For example I state "I have been bending over backwards to accomodate the people" There is no attempt to hide my identity. I was logged out and did not realize it. The fact that I am attacked for any little issue goes a long way to show that I am not being treated fairly, and that there is some underlying agenda on the part of my attackers. BmikeSci 15:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no accusation of anything in my post about the IP address - it was to inform editors that it was one voice speaking, not two. I invite editors to follow the links that this editor has posted on this page regarding other editors. Other than the one that says I edit the Obama pages (among 1600+ other unique pages that I edit, and requiring the most edits because it is under the most attack by vandals, sockpuppets and other dirty tricksters), I am finding that these links are bogus. Perhaps others will have a different experience. Tvoz |talk 17:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment'Check the internet archive for these pages!BmikeSci 18:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

♦Delete There is nothing left once the unverifiable OR is deleted. Prior to that, it was still marginal in terms of notability. The parent company might be notable; one factory is not. Since I read this page last night, much of the text has been moved around, apparently by BmikeSci. I am not sophisticated enough in using the History page to work it all out, but this kind of activity does not "smell" right, even if no text has been lost or changed. Comments should remain in the order in which they are written, and comments should go at the bottom of all previous text. I have nothing to do with elections in the U.S., being a Canadian, and have no ties to any organization or person mentioned here or in the article. Bielle 18:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In two successive edits, Corvus cornix and Duae Quartunciae removed a series of additions to this thread which did not address arguments, but speculated on motives. One of these was my own comment. I am not sure if this was really appropriate; if not then I guess we are ignoring rules in good faith to assist substantive discussion and avoid ill will. I recommend this aside be ignored, and that people carry on the debate as before. For the record, the two diffs are diffs applied 20:48, 20 Aug. (21:56, 20 Aug) I have also left a message on guidelines and canvasing at BmikeSci. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - unless some third party sources about the company can be found. --Rocksanddirt 23:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete messy and OR - ∅ (∅), 23:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' My comments are being deleted from this log. BmikeSci 00:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that some of your comments were removed by Corvus corvix. I noticed the removal, and followed up by removing a comment of my own on motives, that was irrelevant and possibly inflamatory. I apologise for that comment. Removing comments is pretty drastic, so I also gave a link to the relevant edit in the indented paragraph just above and a description of why they were removed. If you want to restore any of these, I will not object, but in all sincerity I strongly advise against it, as a move that could only make your position even worse than it is at present. But it is up to you. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:CORP. wikipediatrix 00:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - per User:Tvoz. It's primarily WP:OR and is being used as a vehicle to attack others - Alison ☺ 01:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in support of the numerous 'smear job' comments; I certainly read it as little more than 'this ebil corp dumps bad goo everywhere'. ThuranX 05:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. It seems to have attracted plenty of attention, and I am sure that that can be presented more fairly than the current version. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 06:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete looks like a hatchet job, as noted above. MarkinBoston 02:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was This article is no more. It's ceased to be. It has expired. The article has gone to meet its maker. This is a late article. It's a stiff, bereft of life, it rests in peace. It's rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. It is an ex-article!.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of things referred to in the works of Monty Python

Delete - indiscriminate list and directory of loosely associated topics. Being mentioned in an episode of Monty Python is not a proper basis for a list article. Otto4711 12:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very very silly list. Very silly indeed! Springnuts 13:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although "there is no third [delete vote]," this is as loosely-connected a list of items and concepts as I've yet seen. Totally indiscriminate, the list doesn't even make distinctions between casual mention and being the actual topic of a work. ◄Zahakiel ► 13:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carina22 15:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The larch. Fails WP:FICT. The larch. --Dhartung | Talk 16:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far too silly. However, I'm sure that the creator of this list didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Hopefully this article will be pining for the fjords soon enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I wish to make a complaint. This article is dead." "It's not dead, it's just resting." We have a category for such things at Category:Monty Python sketches, which serves better than this list. Delete. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although it really IS a List of Things. That would have made a great sketch, wouldn't it? "Hello, I'm looking for a List of Things. Might you know where it is?" Just as the persons who did the "Knights who say Nee" imitation were having more fun than those of us who were listening, this isn't a tribute. I shall slam my car door repeatedly at 5:00 tomorrow morning in protest. Mandsford 22:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I intended the list to be a sort of glossary to Python's material, originally intended to list highbrow philosophers etc so fans could find out for the first time who these people actually were whose names they've been quoting in sketches for decades. But then I thought why not add 'lupin' and 'parrot' etc too? It adds a whole new dimension to the humour. And this sort of glossary or compendium was never possible before WP came along. "Well, may I ask you to reconsider? I mean, you wouldn't regret it. Think of the tourist trade....I'd just sit at the back and not get in anyone's way." Johnalexwood 01:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Response" If you'd started out as a glossary, that might work, but you've still got the problem of enjoying the material enough that you want to quote it in context. As you can see, a lot of us are fans, but the writing would need to be fixed. Maybe you should pull this out of circulation (there's a lot of blood gushing out of it already), save it to your hard drive, and come back again in a few months. By that time, many of us who have posted today will be gone. Mandsford 16:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as being WP:OR and WP is not a directory of things referred to in a movie Corpx 02:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shoe. Megaphone. Grunties. Wankel rotary engine. Delete. This is a far too silly (and a bit suspect) of a list. Hopefully, nobody is embarrassed easily. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response from article creator - have categorised the items. The categories will obviously evolve as more items come in, which I will manage. I think categories were the missing ingredient as it was a bit of a mess before. They make it much easier to read and hopefully will encourage others to add more items. Johnalexwood 07:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a list of random stuff to throw together, WP:NOT. (It's only a flesh wound, I've had worse!)spazure (contribs) 08:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How very dare you! This is not "random stuff" but a unique Python compendium or glossary within WP. It is only possible now that WP is so comprehensive. That's the thing that's so exciting about it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnalexwood (talk • contribs) 08:36, August 22, 2007 (UTC).
Who can honestly say that at some stage in their life they haven't ~~set fire to some great public building?~~ seen an entry like Cardinal Richelieu or John Stuart Mill in an encyclopedia and smiled quietly to themselves? I know I have. Well, that's what it's all about. Johnalexwood 12:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and moved to Dang'an. ELIMINATORJR 12:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dangan

The word Dangan means "dossier" in Chinese. It's a generic word and is not notable. Atchom 12:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

(This AFD lacked a header. I've fixed it. JulesH 13:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
(Thank you, I was going slightly mad trying to figure out what it had to do with Monty Python) Otto4711 19:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:WINAD. Redirecting to dossier is probably not a good idea either (especially since the Pinyin is ambiguously misspelled); the incoming links suggest this should probably be a page about the village of the same name in Ireland. cab 01:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move to Dang'an per WP:HEY by User:Seektruthfromfacts; Dangan should probably be a disambiguation page once it has something to disambiguate. (Seems to have been a village in Ireland, the nickname of Masato Tanaka, etc.). cab 11:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. cab 01:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Move to Record management of the People's Republic of China or something. --Skyfiler 02:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In response to the objections: (1) Passport and hukou are generic words in the same field, and show how an encyclopaedic article on this topic might end up. (2) This system is notable: it influences the careers of 1.3 billion people. Hukou is a related system (hukou is residence, dangan is workplace). It is vaguely comparable to National Insurance numbers in the UK, or Social Security numbers in the US, if those examples are helpful. Record management of the People's Republic of China seems rather vague. References will be difficult though, because the system is secret.
- I've considerably expanded the article. I was wrong about the 1.3 billion, but I think it's now clear why it's notable. Seektruthfromfacts 07:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Noble Collection

No evidence of notability Happy-melon 12:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Happy-melon 12:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be notable enough, and a quick Google News archive search found a number of print sources. What exactly is wrong with it? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Starblind. Noble Collection is a notable producer of replica props, particularly film props. They do produce a published catalog which I personally still get every few months or so and have seen them at other places as well. Article is a stub, but still worth keeping. --Trippz 07:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry to say I do not find any notablity in the article.Harlowraman 02:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in answer to the question above, what is wrong with it is that it fails WP:V, the over-riding policy, by having no reliable sources. It also needs to have a sourced assertion of notability. If some reviews, from reliable publications, can be added to the article attesting to notability then I should be happy to change my view. TerriersFan 04:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I could care less if there is a United States corporation stub on this, a bit off my personal interest trek, but if we are seeking completeness it should remain. It is a WP:V company, which seems to be the only thing the article asserts. Just a simple Google sends back a multitude of unique hits. [[33]], [[34]], Barnes & Noble sells their merchandise [[35]] and Amazon as well [[36]]. I don't know if you are seeking some kind of corporate review, but there are tons of product reviews. Heres one [[37]. Of course, many of the reviews found online are embeded into storefronts, blogs, etc., but they are there. As I said, I could care less, but there is a lot out there, just do a Google and you'll see. I personally don't see anything wrong (requiring deletion, that is) with the stub, don't think it could be merged either, but to delete it seems inappropriate as well if we are seeking completion. As for the Schwarz toy store in New York City, I can't verify, but I wouldn't be surprised considering the prices they charge for this junk. Do any of those satisfy? --Trippz 08:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Starblind, I'd like to see these apparent sources. My Gnews search found nothing. G iggy\^Talk 07:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 23:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrogance (game)

This article has gone unreferenced since February 2007. There is no evidence provided to suggest that this is a notable drinking game. Metros 11:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing promising turns up from a google search designed to eliminate collateral hits. This doesn't seem to meet WP:V, since no source has been produced in all this time and none are readily available. There seem to be a lot of these drinking game articles that need to be thrown under the bus. I've nominated at least one myself. deranged bulbasaur 15:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since multiple independent and reliable sources are lacking showing it is a notable game. That said, it is mentioned in the Boise Weekly [38] in the Google search above by deranged bulbasaur as an alternative name for a drinking game called "Kattabos" which in the article Drinking game is spelled "kottabos." Edison 20:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above arguments. No reliable independent sources cover this to an extent that determines notability. Giggy ^Talk 23:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. ELIMINATORJR 12:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Rogers (musician)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Self-released album and EP + two albums and an EP on non-notable indie label (not the "one of the more important indie labels" of criterion #5). A prolific release schedule does not make one notable. Not a single reference, either (fails WP:V, as well). It should also be noted that while the article appears to have a long history, it was actually hijacked from an article about a Star Trek character in June 2007. Only one IP and two other editors (one a single purpose account) have added content other than clean-up-type stuff. I'm also nominating the articles for her albums and EPs. Her band's article is also currently under AfD here. Precious Roy 11:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her band's article has been deleted. Precious Roy 16:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jupiter Sunrise - When you Google "Amanda Rogers" "Jupiter Sunrise" you do get some things, but she fails all of the other criteria in WP:MUSIC. She is not notable enough to warrant her own article. Neranei (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That band's article has been deleted as non-notable. Precious Roy 17:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Aarktica 20:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Jupiter Sunrise deletion (we meet again, Precious Roy!) G iggy\^Talk 07:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armed suit

AfDs for this article:

A previous AfD was in favor of merging; that was in Novemeber 2006. It appears that no attempt was made to merge or source info. Argument can be made that the article is fancruft and original research. 293.xx.xxx.xx 11:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is blatant original research. eaolson 13:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of real world notability Corpx 02:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 19:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and no logical place to merge/transwiki. — Deckill er 01:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can I invoke the Snowball clause now?--293.xx.xxx.xx 03:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aristean calendar

I've AfD'd this article because I'm uncertain about its notability and I think it needs a proper debate. It's a Christian reform calendar, a rival to the usual Gregorian one. Plenty of ghits. But... when you filter the ghits to exclude geocities, blogs, wikipedia references and secondary hits there's pretty much nothing left. ("Aristean calendar" -geocities -messages -wikipedia -blog).

Most of the hits seem to have arisen from the promotional activities of the author of the article who is the creator of the calendar. There seems to be a small level of interest but nothing that approaches the requirement for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

So IMHO it should be deleted as non-notable and COI. andy 10:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC) andy 10:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow. The article has sources, which, if they check out, would indicate some notability for this unfortunate man who has a unique sense of destiny. Reading about Mr. Fernando, I feel sorry for him. If it weren't for the sources, I honestly would suspect a hoax. The article is definitely POV, written by someone who clearly likes Aristeo Fernando. However, one doesn't have to be a scientist to see flaws in this poor man's reasoning. If, indeed, he has been notable enough to have praise written about him, then I suspect that there are other articles that are not as kind (one headline cited was entitled "Time on his hands"). I have a feeling that if a google search turns up many mentions of Mr. Fernando, many will not be flattering. The idea of a calendar where all the dates stay on the same weekday, year after year, is not new; I think it's called the World calendar. I will agree that it is novel for someone to have proven that Jesus was crucified in 1 B.C. (not a typo... he also proved that Jesus was born in 33 B.C., according to the article). I did some cleanup of the form, but left in a great example of a dangling participle concerning the Crucifixion. Ultimately, I pity Mr. Fernando, and I am not sure that we should subject this harmless man to possible ridicule by future editors of a Wikipedia article. Mandsford 13:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the searing analysis already presented. The relevant policies, aside from the obvious WP:COI by the author, are WP:V and WP:NOT#OR. Shalom ^Hello 01:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The author has left the following comment on the Talk page, which pretty much sums up the problems with this article: "This work is a new proposal to reform the Gregorian calendar. As such, references may be wanting because many are original works from my website which are now being made available to the public through Wikipedia." i.e. COI and OR. andy 16:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A lot of work has gone into this concept, but even the creator admits that it is original research, that independent sources are not available and that the Wikipedia article was created as a form of advertising. Euryalus 02:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately, as the author has clearly put a lot of work into the concept. However, I do not think Wikipedia is the place for such an article. Wikipedia is supposed to include only information and points that are independently referenced, and can have been discussed/published in sources which have undergone either peer review (as in the case of an academic journal), or some for of editorial control/revision such as a published book. It is true that many claims in Wikipedia articles fall short of this, but that is the ideal, and material that fails this test is "fair game" for removal. The source material for the article is neither peer vetted, or has been subject to editorial control, and the author admits this. While this article and idea may have a valid place on the internet and be open for discussion, it does not meet the guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia's role is not that of a promotion tool. - Vedexent (talk) - 13:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain/Addendum: The author has recently presented a number of media publications which the idea has been presented. I'm unsure whether the collection of sources constitute notability - I have not gone through the various publications and tried to judge their "notability". My "gut reaction" is that the article probably makes the minimal notability requirements, although it does still seem to be a case of someone using Wikipedia as a promotional tool. -- Vedexent (talk) - 22:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even the author admits it's OR and that he wants to use WP for promotion, and the only references he gives are links to his own web pages where he makes a number of promotional claims. Without detailed research we don't know if he has really received even the very limited attention that he claims. But assuming he has, at best it's clear that he has blitzed newspapers and various notables, some of whom have been nice to him. This is nowhere near the requirement of WP:NN for "significant coverage". If this article was about UFOs rather than something sensible we would not be having such a protracted and polite debate! andy 00:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that is, in my opinion, unfortunate. Should we not treat articles and their justification impartially, whether or not we personally believe that the material is "worthwhile"? -- Vedexent (talk) - 00:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that was my point. This article fails WP's policies on OR, notability, verifiability and so on. If the article itself was clearly silly there wouldn't be a polite debate about it, but because it's a sensible subject and I suspect there's some sympathy for an author who is well meaning but obviously getting nowhere in his quest, then we're avoiding the issue. After 15 years of trying he's only managed to get a handful of newspaper cuttings and a few kindly letters from VIPs and now he's trying the same thing with WP. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. andy 08:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author seems to be replying solely on the article's talk page, which is somewhat confusing. Check there for his responses to criticisms here. -- Vedexent (talk) - 22:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While at first blush, this may be a vanity exercise, believe it or not, he has citations for 13 newspaper articles, dating back to 1992. (see: [39] Mandsford, above, alluded to this page.) The catch is, they are cut-and-pasted into his Geocities site. Now, the question is: if it's not online, is it 'verifiable' and is the citation somehow illegitimate? If so, almost all newspaper citations before the Internet age (and many more, since many papers don't archive online) are also illegitimate. I sense, knowing how the wind is blowing on Wikipedia, what the answer will be, since most here are avid deletionists. But I'm hoping for a bit of fair play here. I'm probably foolish for doing so. (P.S. Whether we like the subject of an article or not shouldn't be brought up during deletion discussions.) - Nhprman 02:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources don't have to be on-line to pass WP:V. You can get hold of old copies of newspapers - often dating back to the 19th century at least for significant events. Big name newspapers archived to microfiche well before the internet was around and those archives are still available, some are being transitioned to online resources.Ga rr ie 06:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, yes, that's true. And of course, that was my point. Some here on WP argue that if a "link" cannot be produced, then it's not a valid source. If you read the remarks by others here, that's just the argument that's being made, and it's bogus. - Nhprman 18:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is original research WP:OR. The secondary sources only demonstrate that the person who invented this concept has had trouble getting somebody to take his concept seriously. His concept has only been mentioned in passing and nobody has conducted an indepth review of the concept, rather than the novelty of it. This is one instead for WikiNews. Assize 04:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Being taken seriously" is not a requirement for an article on Wikipedia. Positive spin in the 13 newspaper articles this fellow's calendar concept has been pubished in isn't a requirement for notability, though the fact that he's been published DOES confer verifiablity. Peer review in an academic journal isn't required before articles may appear here. - Nhprman 18:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to my comments about notable sources I said that a peer reviewed journal or subject to some form of editorial control as in a book publisher. Newspapers usually fall under this heading of "being under editorial control", although a "local broadsheet" has - in my opinion - little to no editorial credibility, while something like the London Times has a great deal (that is if you don't reject the political leanings of such publications). The guideline to have peer review or external editorial control is there to prevent people from self-publishing a website on a free provider and then claiming that such "publication" constitutes a valid publication reference and therefore confers notability. This article skates very close to that line, and it is a value judgment whether or not it crosses it. Allowing such self-created "references" opens the floodgates to any kind of errant nonsense which people want to take a little effort to creating a "reference" for: I could make addendum to the article on Belgium, for example, explaining that many people contest that the country does not exist and claims to that effect are part of a vast conspiracy. Some neutral, third party, editorial control has to be exercised over published sources to keep this kind of thing from happening, in my opinion. This article has published sources. Whether they are acceptable in their notability is something you'll have to judge on your own. -- Vedexent (talk) - 22:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that a local paper doesn't have sufficient editorial control is, as you say, completely your opinion, and not a Wikipedia policy. But you changed gears here midway to imply that someone has simply created a Website and called it a "publication" and that it is a "self created reference." Which is it: a poor media reference or a fake, made-up one? The author of that page did neither thing. He simply put the printed texts of these 13 articles, published in real newspapers, onto a geocities page so we could read them, too. And I know saying the word "geocities" around here is like holding up a cross to a vampire, but you folks need to get past it, since it's the content that matters, not where someone has placed it. Frankly, all he has to do is CITE the printed works in the article properly, just like thousands of other articles here, and that's legitimate as a source. Again, the idea that if it ain't online, it's not "real" has soaked into Wikipedia and it's a dangerous and foolish limitation to what is acceptable and what is not. - Nhprman 02:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I wasn't suggesting that his concept wasn't serious, only that the references established only his efforts to have his concept being taken seriously. The sum total of the references are a short interview with a woman on a street and a couple of newspaper articles about the lobbying of the concept. At best, it deserves a short mention on a page that discusses other possible methods of calculating dates. It fails WP:N as not being addressed directly in significant detail in a significant number of sources, and can only be described as trivial coverage. Assize 03:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A short mention in another article is better than complete elimination, since if this isn't "notable" at this point it is mentionable elsewhere. But given historical precedent here, the Radical Deletionists will not allow it to even be mentioned. - Nhprman 17:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OR. 33 geocities reference and another WP page, so it must be good... Giggy ^Talk 07:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep: appear to have enough to pass WP:MUSIC per the touring and refs added during the AfD. Bearing that in mind, I have also undeleted the album mentioned below. ELIMINATORJR 12:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Le Shok

non-notability of a former, four year old band with a single album Chris 10:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only evidence for notability is a single review (linked from the article on their album, which should also be AFDd) that describes the band as 'four snot-nosed punk kids who think that their album is "arty" because they are friends with bands like Ink & Dagger and have songs with stupid one-liners like "Killed by Fuck" and "Blend the Quick With the Slow."' This doesn't appear to establish notability to me. JulesH 13:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per and JulesH.Harlowraman 02:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist with their albums - if we check the Discography in the article we find that they had 8 albums with articles. One has just been deleted leaving 7. It seems illogical to me to delete the group whilst leaving 7 pages of their albums. Better I think to package the lot together. I suggest a multi-nomination of the 7 albums together with a relisting of the group. TerriersFan 04:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete band and album articles - If they aren't notable, the albums aren't either, so just delete them now. G iggy\^Talk 07:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Needs good references, for sure, but they are definitely notable--they were a pretty big underground band (on a nation, not local, level) when they were around. Two US tours are more than enough for notablilty (references are needed to back it up—I can temporarily verify it with WP:OR) but everyone has seemed to overlook that. I hesitate to do much work since the article pretty obviously will be s-canned soon anyway, what with all the delete !votes. Precious Roy 11:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added some non-trivial references—including the cover of Maximumrocknroll fer cryin' out loud! More to come if I get the chance. Precious Roy 11:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep as this went through DRV only one month ago. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Code2000

AfDs for this article:

This article was deleted on the grounds that it was not notable, and then un-deleted in a deletion review that failed to actually demonstrate that the subject was in fact notable. So I'm nominating it for deletion again for exactly the same reason as the first time. The article is still a basic stub (though it looks larger due to the lists of Unicode blocks), and I can't see anyone expanding it. Ptcamn 10:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The DRV barely a month ago resulted in an overwhelming consensus that Code2000 is a highly notable font, with ample supporting documentation. User Ptcamn (talk · contribs) was also responsible for the first nomination, and was aware of the DRV. This re-nomination is a pointless waste of time (or maybe WP:POINT?), and should be speedily closed as a keep. --KSmrq^T 11:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What supporting documentation? I see none. --Ptcamn 11:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I couldn't view many of the special symbols on Wikipedia (using Firefox under Linux) until I learned about this font. It's the most complete freeware/shareware implementation of the Unicode standard that exists in the world today. What could be more notable than that? DavidCBryant 11:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having coverage in reliable sources. Help viewing special symbols on Wikipedia goes in Help:Special characters. --Ptcamn 12:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The DRV was unanimous. WP:N is only a guideline, and it seems that this font is important enough to include without meeting its requirements. In addition to the ample evidence of importance provided during the DRV, note that the font is recommended as a "useful resource" by the unicode consortium. JulesH 13:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nobody does formal reviews of fonts. Designers talk about the appropriateness of a font in a specific setting. Code2000 doesn't get any merit on its aesthetics. It gets mentioned because it is one of the most comprehensive pan-Unicode fonts that is available. Those mentions are to use it as a fallback font, if a font for a specific Unicode Subrange is not installed on one's computer. I'd also suggest that with an AfD 22 June 2007. Deleted 27 June 2007, and Deletion overruled 16 July 2007, the nominator is WP:POINT.(I thought that they had been previous AfDs, but I can't find them.)jonathon 13:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an unusual and widely useful font. —Michael Z. 2007-08-19 15:10 Z

Speedy Keep. This is a notable font, which gets a significant mention in the Unicode consortium resources page, as well as three other pages in the Unicode Consortium site. It is shareware, with sufficiently liberal conditions that it is almost freeware; hence very widely disseminated. It is widely cited in many unaffiliated sites as an easy way to get coverage for particular languages. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 15:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 09:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Nightwatchman Tour

wikipedia isn't really the place for tour dates. no other bands/singers have tour dates posted on wikipedia and posting tour dates is really just a form of promotion, and wikipedia isn't the place for promoting music ▓░ Dark Devil ░▓ ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) 09:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Resolute 15:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A page only for tour dates is not encyclopedic Emmaneul ^(Talk) 17:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wikipedia isn't for infinite lists. -- John Reaves 16:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. communities with caucasian majority populations

I don't have hard statistics to back this up, but I'd reckon a majority of all communities in the U.S. fall under this criterion. Any list that proposes to give such a voluminous number of individual communities would take enormous effort to maintain: effort that would have to be recommenced every time there is a census. It goes without saying that the list as it stands is woefully incomplete. As for the intersection of topics represented, it might have some minor sociological interest, but is it really worth the effort? I can't think of many circumstances in which this will be found useful. deranged bulbasaur 09:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This has been floated as a possible article, so, happily, it doesn't have much content yet, and won't be missed when it's deleted. The title is not at all misleading: the intent appears to be to list U.S. "communities" where more than 50 percent of the residents are Caucasian (which in Census Bureau language doesn't include Caucasians of Hispanic descent), although even that rule is broken by the reference to Los Angeles. A demographer, however, would have a more precise definition than community, and would be aware that a list of municipalities (or even counties, or neighborhoods in a particular zip code) that are more than 50% White would be a pretty long (and not very useful list). Stats like that are compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau, which recently listed Mitchell County, Iowa, and Magoffin County, Kentucky, as being having a 99 percent White majority. "U.S. communities with caucasian majority populations" would not be a very worthwhile article, even if it were written by someone who has accumulated a bit more background in demographics. Mandsford 13:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I agree that this list looks woefully incomplete, and/or that there's an element of editor judgment on which cities have been included on the list. If we were to list every community in the US—even just every community over 50,000 people—with a white-majority population, the list would be long and cumbersome.

That said, I'm going to short-circuit the "but what about..." arguments for the other lists, e.g. List of U.S. communities with African American majority populations. Even without taking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS into account, the other lists make notable subjects because the lists are more than likely shorter (i.e. less editorial control about which cities are included) and more likely to have been independently written about (I used to live in DC, and I know that the Washington Post mentions that a majority of the population of Prince George's County, Maryland is African American when it is relevant to the news story). —C.Fred (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I could see the point if it was for a West African country, but not this. Punkmorten 13:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Really pointless. -- Cat ^chi? 16:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This list might be remotely defensible if it took all its data from each periodic census and limited itself to only the largest communities. However if you read our article Caucasian race you may begin to get the idea that 'race' is a social construct, so it's not very plausible to try to construct an objective list on this basis. Like 'List of cities containing many people generally regarded as tall' would be hopeless, due to arbitrariness, and the American census bureau plays around with the definition of Caucasian all the time. As of this writing, Hispanics are not Caucasian, for example. EdJohnston 19:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would include hundreds, even thousands, of cities, that would make it be split up into seperate lists. Its probably a majority of all communities in the US. - Presidentman 22:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument, but List of U.S. communities with African American majority populations is also nominated for deletion. Dbromage [Talk] 00:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Response" The poorly written article, and that well-written article, are as different as... uh, black and white. It's not the concept, it's the execution. Mandsford 17:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The page as it is titled would be too long and not easy to construct. Community is too arbitrary. As mentioned earlier this might make sense if it were in a country where there are fewer whites.Brusegadi 01:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being a list of loosely associated items Corpx 02:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Acntx 10:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable,clear POV fork of List of U.S. communities with African American majority populations, espcially given the article creator's comment here. Tarc 17:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list would be endless, as it would include probably 80% of all geographical cities, states, countries, communities,places,etc. within the United States. If this is kept, we may as well have a List of places in the World. That would be almost as endless as this list.--Sefringle^Talk 03:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per virtually everything above. Recommend speedy per WP:SNOW, not to mention WP:POINT. Newyorkbrad 04:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 04:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WjBscribe 22:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O. B. Montessori Center

Contested prod. Non-notable school. There are many thousands of Montessori schools in the world and no evidence that this one in particular is notable enough to require an encyclopedia article. The only assertion of notability is that it claims to have been the first Montessori school in the Philippines, but the article is unreferenced. This is just a lengthy POV advert for a school. andy 09:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. IPSOS (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 14:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article needs wikifying and a cleanup, but I do not think deletion is necessary. Statements on the school within the article such as alumni and history give the article some context of importance - the biggest thing missing is references. I have done a search and I could find several potential sources on the school - there are probably even more non-English ones around as well. An article on the school is potentially verifiable and could pass WP:V and WP:N. Camaron1 | Chris 15:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all the copyright violations I can find in the article. It appears only the history section was a problem - that section will need to be re-written. Camaron1 | Chris 09:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - well spotted. But there are still the substantive issues of notability and the massive length and lack of neutrality of the article. andy 16:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am following earlier given advice and using WP:SOFIXIT. I am beginning to clean up the article and re-write some sections - as well as add references. Camaron1 | Chris 18:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be copyvio of [40] Kappa 23:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete ~~as copyvio.~~ Copyvio apparentely fixed, still not notable or properly verified. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has 4 notable alumni and therefore should be kept. Tiddly Tom 18:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nn school. Notable alumni are not grounds for justifying an article: cf. inherited notability. Eusebeus 18:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inclusion of a college within this school makes it notable. -- DS1953 ^talk 19:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What does make a school notable? I couldant find a page on it... Tiddly Tom 19:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found many references through a Google search, including glowing discussions in two recent UNESCO reports. One of those reports stated that the school's literacy program won the 1993 UNESCO International Literary Award in New Delhi, India. How many schools can make that claim? Even if other parts of the school were not notable, I think it is generally accepted that every college is notable, and this center includes not only a primary school and a high school, but also a college. That alone should be enough. -- DS1953 ^talk 19:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is WP:Schools - but it is historical, there is currently no accepted guideline which explains school notability itself. Anyway, I think there is enough about this school which gives it notability - its scope of education (i.e. college, pre-school and school), unique teaching style, history including a quite notable founder, alumni, awards and recognition in the media. It is the article itself that is the problem - I have started the cleanup and left a request through proper channels at WP:SCH asking for short term attention be given to the article. Camaron1 | Chris 20:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - terrible article; notable school. Unique educational arrangements. TerriersFan 22:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, not close. MarkinBoston 03:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Poor article but the school has a unique curriculum and is clearly notable. References exist to expand and verify the article. Dahliarose 19:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom not notable.Harlowraman 02:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - What Camaron1 said. It just needs reffing. G iggy\^Talk 07:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 09:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Les Visible

Largely unsourced article about an artist. Certainly a WP:BLP issue; but it is also not clear why WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO should be fulfilled. The article claims several albums, but at least his most recent one is self-released. I suspect WP:COI, but can't prove it. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 14:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say unverifiable? I sure can. Delete unless someone turns up some good reliable sources to prove the claims in the article. I couldn't find any, and found only one Google News reference to him - as a commenter on a bulletin board someplace. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Y not? 07:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After a quick search I was unable to find something that was not directly related to the artist. By WP:AGF I will not claim WP:COI but there certainly is a problem with WP:V and WP:N. Brusegadi 01:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE as non-noteable. Rlevse 14:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with more than one music video

AfDs for this article:

The short deletion reason is this: who cares? Having more than one music video is not a notable concept so why should there be a list of them on Wikipedia? It's simply an indiscriminate list full of WP:OR. Axem Titanium 06:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On the one hand, counting is not OR, and the number is finite, so a list would be possible. But what possible reason is there for this list? As a crude indication of the importance of the songs? It's a very crude measure indeed, judging by the reasons for the examples--some for localization, some for censorship, some for re-creation a decade later in another style, to take a few I can decipher. I don;'t think this is encyclopedic now, or is ever likely to be. DGG (talk) 07:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep It's quite rare for a song to have 2 versions (or in some cases 3) of a promo video. It is maintainable, and encyclopedic to boot. It needs a little cleanup (a-z heading, for example) and the inclusion criteria moved from the talk page to the top of the article. A good list of a notable event that shouldn't go down the knee-jerk delete-all-lists-culture that exists on WP. Lugnuts 08:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment also using the rationale of "who cares?" for deletion sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You could apply the "who cares" logic to virtually every article on here. Lugnuts 08:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - What I mean is that there is no outside commentary on the concept of "songs with more than one music video" because the concept itself is not notable. I believe I've completely backed up my statement of "who cares" with a valid deletion reason. Axem Titanium 16:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The question isn't whether multiple videos are rare, but whether it is encyclopedic to have a list that differentiates between the items on the list and the broader category by a trivial distinction. The article itself says that it will never "satisfy any objective standard for completeness." eaolson 13:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics; a song having two music videos is no more notable than a song with only one music video. List based on a trivial connection. Masaruemoto 20:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I dont think the intersection is trivial. The list serves its purpose in my view which is to group elements having a certain non-trivial property. The reason for the songs having more than one video should be explored in each songs' page. I guess the hard thing is that it is very subjective to determine if this intersection is trivial or not. My view is that if a song has two music videos it should certainly be mentioned in the song's article. This establishes the notability of having two music videos. Since this is notable, I have no problem with having a list of songs that have this non-trivial property. Brusegadi 02:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that we, as editors, can't say that having 2+ music videos is notable; it must be said by an outside source. Otherwise, it would be WP:OR to call the concept notable. Axem Titanium 02:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I understand that. My point is that if in a song's article it is mentioned that the song has two videos, and it is properly sourced, then having two videos is notable. Otherwise it would not be included in the song's article. Thus I feel that the notability issue does not necessarily have to be addressed here, but in each song's page. Otherwise we would be stretching notability to work against the spirit of the encyclopedia. Generally speaking, 'list of...' can be hard to source in general, but easy for the individual element in the list. So, to all those who say this is a trivial intersection, I ask them to reconsider per my comments. Thank you, Brusegadi 03:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is extremely trivial information (to me) and also a list of loosely associated topics Corpx 02:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Corpx feel it does not need a separate article.Harlowraman 02:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - DGG put it beautifully. WP:NOT#LISTS - Loosely associated information. It can be mentioned in the song's page, but we don't need a list. Maybe a cat (but that could easily get taken to CFD). G iggy\^Talk 07:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These songs are not primarily notable for having more than one music video, so it's a trivial intersection. This information is best mentioned in the song's article. Spellcast 11:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of maps used in Red vs. Blue

This is an indiscriminate list of near useless information. It is not a notable intersection of data and WP:OR to boot. Axem Titanium 06:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of machinima deletions. — TKD::Talk 06:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We had a discussion a while back on the talk page that anything useful should be condensed and merged back up to Red vs. Blue production; in hindsight, it was a bad idea to create the list in the first place (it was a request during a peer review for the main Red vs. Blue article) and and a worse decision to split it off. There is, in reality, probably some useful information for Red vs. Blue production here, but it'd have to be sourced and rewritten, so it might be just as well to wipe the slate clean. — TKD::Talk 06:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. It seems to have been poorly conceived, and then poorly carried out afterwards. I don't think it's particularly notable in the first place, outside of Red vs. Blue production. --Haemo 07:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Its deletion will help to strengthen the topic by giving it more potential to reach WP:FT status. — Deckill er 13:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see this as being no different than a list of maps in a video game Corpx 02:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frag as per nom; not useful in the Halo universe or otherwise. David Fuchs^(talk) 16:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of technological advancements in Back to the Future Part II

The topic does not appear to be notable and the whole article is a bunch of WP:OR ("But the 1989 film didn't predict..."). It really doesn't hold up to WP:FICT at all (ie, it cannot sustain an encyclopedic treatment since there are no published sources dealing with this fragment of the movie). Axem Titanium 06:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research; if any of those links are to reliable sources specifically discussing the portrayal of the future in Back to the Future Part II, then merge that content into Back to the Future Part II. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Deckill er 13:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep One reaches this via Wikipedia's Back to the Future category, and the fact that there's a category shows the high regard in which "BTTF" is held here. I can sympathize with the nom's concerns about OR, but television and film articles are held to a lower standard on Wikipedia. I'm afraid that if you nominated every TV or movie article that is heavy on original research, you would develop carpal tunnel syndrome, and nobody wants you to have carpal... Yes, this could be merged back into the article about the film, and I think that's where it started. However, this one has a long history and a lot of contributions and edits (yes, even I), and fits with the other articles in the category. I commend thee, nominator, thou art like St. George, but some dragons are easier to slay than others. Mandsford 13:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no notability of the topic. Why don't we have articles on technological advancements in the bazillion other fictional works set in the future? Because there is no outside commentary on the subject so it can't sustain an article. I find your statement "television and film articles are held to a lower standard on Wikipedia" worrying. I know many editors would disagree, especially those who frequent WP:FICT. Axem Titanium 16:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it is worrying, because it's true, but I stopped worrying about it. I just like to remind people about the double standard when they start quoting their favorite Wikipedia chapter and verse. Maybe those disagreeing editors you know are just kidding themselves about the importance of knowing a lot about a TV show. Sure, it's a double standard. Always has been. The examples I like to cite ad nauseam are Scooby Doo or Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and the hundreds of articles about these and other defining moments in civilization. Where do you think descriptions of every single frickin' episode of a a TV show come from? The Journal of Scooby-doology? Nah, it's from one of many websites that I could look at if Wikipedia disappeared tomorrow. Yes, I'm sure that someone has written "a REAL book" about some of these things too, the kind with lots of pictures. As I say, there's a lower standard for things on TV, and that's just the way it is. Mandsford 21:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's the way it is, but it shouldn't be this way. Ergo, this AFD. Axem Titanium 01:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! We'll solve the problems in the Middle East in the next discussion. Mandsford 12:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's original research, unless multiple reliable sources have discussed this topic. And sets a bad precedent for hundreds of other List of technological advancements in science fiction work X, where X = film/book/TV series/comic/etc of an editor's choice. Masaruemoto 20:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is all fan fiction and original research. Fan sees movies and documents everything that might be a "technological advancement". There is no notability established for this list Corpx 02:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR and non-notable subject. What's with the But the 1989 film didn't predict... section as well?! Why are headings like that being used in an encyclopedia, but worst of all, how can people note anachronisms in a work of fiction STILL set in the future? To quote some stupidity from the article, the film didn't predict Widespread use of cellphones. The film is set in 2015, maybe cellphones get banned in 2012? Maybe a new kind of communication device is invented in the next eight years? Who knows? Who cares? It's the future. This reminds me of the "mistake" in Spielberg's Artificial Intelligence: A.I., where the twin towers can be seen standing 2000 years in the future. The twin towers could have been re-built at some point in the next 2000 years, so it isn't a mistake. Crazysuit 04:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is original research about a topic that doesn't have sufficient sources to establish notability. Also, articles on works of fiction are not held to a lower standard on Wikipedia, people just haven't been following the standards set in policy and guideline and assume that means a new standard has been set. Repeatedly disregarding policy and guideline does not create a new standard. Jay32183 19:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cars in Project Gotham Racing 2

Indiscriminate list; it's like a "List of weapons in [video game]" article, plenty of which have been deleted (here are just a few examples, in case you don't believe me). Axem Titanium 06:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide; a list of cars in a videogame is exactly something which one would find in a guide, not in an encyclopedia. --Haemo 06:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 16:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Axem Titanium 20:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete game guide stuff. Miremare 01:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not game guide Corpx 02:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, because core element of game. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean, like a game guide? Axem Titanium 06:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wikipedia not game guide. Wish all "List of" pages could be deleted... Fin ©™ 15:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 09:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of music video directors

I think Category:Music video directors should be adequate enough. The list adds nothing to what the category has. Spellcast 06:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inclusion criteria seems to be based on OR. No more useful than the category, which seems to be reasonably complete and also includes subcategorisations. Neither of these problems is unfixable, though, so if anyone fixes them before the end of the AFD, I'll be willing to reconsider. JulesH 13:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another list that is better served as a category Corpx 02:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx.--JForget 00:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 09:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Microcelebrity

Non-notable neologism about small-scale celebrity status. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. At best, transwiki and redirect to celebrity. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 05:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, occasional use in reliable sources but not really discussed or defined in depth. --Dhartung | Talk 16:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to a more common term. Looks to have been an attempted neologism that never really took off, with only about 150 unique Google hits and a number of those are unrelated to the article's usage, either meaning a very obscure celebrity or something else entirely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery Shysters

Non-notable "private men's organization" in Montgomery, Alabama (I think, softball team). Unreferenced; over-the-top or WP:HOAX. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 05:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -Drdisque 07:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it sounds like a hoax, or just something someone made up. Considering "shyster" is a pejorative for lawyers, I think it's probably made up. Anyways, no sources to verify any of this in any case. --Haemo 07:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax, and in any case notability not established. Springnuts 13:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Eliz81 is probably correct that this is a faux-grandiose article about a city league softball team once made up primarily of lawyers. There was apparently minimal (now deleted) coverage at some point on WSFA, a local TV station. Fails WP:N. --Dhartung | Talk 16:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either a hoax or something extremely non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, softball team with delusions of grandeur. NawlinWiki 21:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to off-licence. — TKD::Talk 08:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Offlicence

Urban music collective from the UK. Unreferenced, not notable enough yet to pass WP:MUSIC. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 05:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of Wiki notability. Could be speedied. Springnuts 13:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this, and use the title as a redirect to Off-licence (plausible misspelling). Grutness...wha? 00:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. — TKD::Talk 09:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people known by middle name

There's many people known by middle names. What makes it so notable? See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people known by more than one given name (in combination). Spellcast 05:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LC. Completely arbitrary, no point in this list. Faithlessthewonderboy 05:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this list, to me, is a list of loosely associated items as it is way too common for one to go by his/her middle name Corpx 05:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list would be way too long. Sefringle^Talk 05:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From the above comments:

"There's many people known by middle names."

"it is way too common for one to go by his/her middle name"

"list would be way too long"

While this is certainly true (although I object to the use of the term 'middle name' in this context), there are an awful lot of people who don't seem to be aware that juxtonymy is not in the least bit unusual. While none of the individual cases may be notable, the fact that there are so many is notable. Once the scourge of schizonymacentricity is swept from the land, then by all means delete this article, but until then it remains a useful resource for those of us who wish to educate the ignorant. Grant 13:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people having a middle name does not make this list notable. There can never be multiple, reliable sources explaining why there is something special about these people having a middle name. So it's an indiscriminate list of trivia. Spellcast 14:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about having a so-called middle name... Grant 01:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, the practice is so common that it's not that notable, as demonstrated by the length of the list. And, as explained below, I don't think it's terribly useful. Indeed, I think it will only make the ignorant even less educated, and boring conversation even more boring. I can't bring myself to vote "delete" because you've done a lot of hard work, and you present it very well... the first name followed by the blue link, as in "Stephen Grover Cleveland". However, I can't vote to keep either-- you've fallen into the common trap of wanting to list everything out of the idea that it's unfair to leave some items off. I think the Book of Lists didn't find this concept to be worth more than one page in a paperback book. This one is "indiscriminate" in the sense that it's mostly a list of blue-links with no explanation of why this person might be notable; and, as if the list wasn't already too long, you've made the mistake of including fictional characters and folks who use an initial for their first name, like "F. Murray Abraham". The problem is that a superlong list becomes "unmaintainable"... you don't have time to make this your life's work, and I've already seen vandals coming in (no, Ed Asner's name isn't really "Yitzhak"). Userfy the thing, or save it to your computer. And, bad as I hate the word "listcruft", read WP:LISTCRUFT and see if you don't agree that there may be some problems. Mandsford 14:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re the Book of Lists: Wikipedia is not paper. Grant 01:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, trivial intersection of data, thus, not notable. Axem Titanium 20:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a navigational device. Verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is not an indiscriminate one, if restricted to 1)notable people who 2) are known by their middle names? As R. Arthur Norton says, it is a useful navigation aid. I would never have tuned the TV in for a western starring Orvon G. Autry rather than Gene Autry. Who ever heard of US Presidents Stephen G. Cleveland or John C. Coolidge, Jr., or race car driver Ralph D. Earnhardt ? Edison 15:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll weigh in on a vote on this one, since this is organized in a form worth emulating, and Edison raises a good point. It needs some major league editing, however.... you've got enough of a list with well-known people without throwing in every single person who hated their first name. You can cut this one by 1/3 or 1/2 without losing any effect. Mandsford 12:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a belief prevalent among schizonyms that juxtonyms have made a conscious choice to use a 'middle' name. In my experience, this is simply not the case. Grant 01:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted as a copyvio of [41]. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jfdd

This appears to be a personal essay failing WP:NOT#OR, an opinion piece, and a WP:SOAPBOX article, although it does contain a few references to notable topics. Admittedly, the rather blurry picture of the editor's tattoo is a nice touch. Michael Devore 04:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a shame that this doesn't fall into any speedy category as far as I can tell (probably closest to A7), but it's an obvious delete. Proposed deletion might have been most appropriate in this circumstance. JavaTenor 05:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I would have unabashedly prod'ed the article until recently. But of late my views on what are—to me—clear article removal candidates seem to be in increasing conflict with rather more inclusionist editors. In response, I have adjusted how conservative I am with deletion candidates and levels if there is any hint of notable content contained in the article. (Plus it seemed a shame for such a nice tattoo to go away unnoticed.) I also strongly agree with you that speedy deletion should get category expansion for such cases as these.Michael Devore 05:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly Strong Delete The article is an original first-person opinionated essay about a novel, non-notable subject, which is an invention of the author, with the possible intention to advance a position or idea. Deletion seems utterly obvious, too bad it's not speedy criteria. Calgary 05:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete copyvio + nonsense and appropriately tagged Corpx 05:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:NOT#OR, WP:SOAP, WP:NOT#BLOG, not to mention that it's just plain nonsense. Faithlessthewonderboy 05:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some people think me among the more inclusionist editors, but I prefer to say that I and the others here simply use proper criteria and established process. This article is a trivial, ill-conceived, totally useless essay. It should be deleted. But it is not a speedy because those are value judgments that more than one or two people should make. It would do for prod also, because any good deletion reason is sufficient for prod, but prod only works if not opposed. I would have tried it--I often do try prod for articles like this--because there seems to be a good chance that the author might not have defended it.

But anyway, Corpx has found it's a total copyvio of a page on the author's website, [42] and can be speedied as such. I'm not completely happy about that, because I think it obvious that the author meant to contribute it here, but for a worthless article like this I'm not going to hunt him down to ask, especially if we then have to say a few days later that we're deleting it anyway. DGG (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete due to lack of reliable sources. — TKD::Talk 09:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dibble (game)

This article is about a non-notable game (failing WP:N), and is completely unsourced, which it has been since at least July. In addition, a Google search for "Dibble" brings only results about the Dibble family, and a Google search for "Dibble (game)" yields primarily results relating primarily to an unrelated drinking came called Ibble Dibble. bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 04:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The picture on the page says it all. I know we're not supposed to make the accusation, but this is obviously a vanity article. Faithlessthewonderboy 04:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. Why can't people spread games the old-fashioned way, by telling their friends? --Dhartung | Talk 05:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete obvious Stuff someone came up with one day. -Drdisque 07:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The things listed at WP:NOT are not criteria for speedy deletion; in fact, the CSD page lists WP:NOT as a specific non-criteria for speedy deletion. bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 14:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It I disagree. This game is indeed a local favorite throughout many suburbs of Jersey. Personally I've known about it since 1998. Over the years I’ve played with subtle variations to the rules that are listed in the article, but for the most part it seems pretty accurate. Obviously this is a regional type of thing… I would guess that most residents who grew up in areas like Camden, Cherry Hill, and Middletown would know of the game and can confirm it. Otherwise, there’s obviously no sanctioning body to the game, but its article here I think is valid in capturing the essence of the game and is completely warranted (think of it as a less-popular version of the basketball game H-O-R-S-E, which also has its own spot in Wikipedia). Just my two cents. Recommend keeping the page. Any other Jersey folk who can confirm the wonderful game of Dibble?. Nils302 12:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete for lack of any reliable sources. Sandstein 20:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jumpswing

AfDs for this article:

The following text is copied and pasted from Talk:Jumpswing, with minor modifications.

IMHO this article is not noteworthy.

Every reference in the article (except for one) goes to a single website, www.jumpswing.com, written and maintained by Kurt Lichtmann, and essentially all of the text came directly from that website.
The one reference that is not www.jumpswing.com, is about a fact that has nothing to do with jumpswing.
The article was created by User:Arieljoy (Ariel), who appears to be one of the people who teaches swing classes (including jumpswing) at Cornell and is their choreographer. "All Swing Dance classes are taught by Kurt [Lichtmann] and his lovely assistants from the club: Kristin, Lauren, Erica, Ariel, Leah." [43], and "Choreography: Ariel mak84" [44].
The only contributions that User:Arieljoy has made to Wikipedia is to add references/info about jumpswing.
~~Kurt Lichtmann has apparently moved from Cornell to Ithaca, NY, which is why Ithaca has something about jumpswing now. (Reference deliberately withheld for privacy reasons.)~~ Oops! Kirt Lichtmann is at Cornell, which is in Ithaca, NY. Duh... That would explain why his address is in Ithaca, NY.
Every dance related search result for "jumpswing" on Google goes back to the group at Cornell/Ithaca/jumpswing.com (same people, two websites; both refer to Kurt Lichtmann who is the same guy mentioned above). The rest of the search results are about the type of music called jumpswing and other completely unrelated topics, like playing volleyball.
The first dance related search result for "jump swing" on Google goes back to the Cornell/Ithaca/jumpswing.com group. I found another search result for "jump swing" much much later that was about combining classic swing steps (East Coast Swing/ECS/6-count swing) with Lindy Hop patterns (in this case, they probably mean 8-count patterns -- Lindy Hop is primarily composed of 6-count and 8-count patterns, but it also incorporates X-count patterns, where X is any number, usually even/divisible by 2).[45]

Contrary to what Chunky Rice said in the first nomination for deletion on August 10, 2007, I actually did not find a single dance studio that is teaching jumpswing/jump swing. If there is any mention of it, they mean they'll be teaching ECS with Lindy Hop, which is a natural learning progression for a dancer who wants to learn Lindy Hop.
Kurt calls jumpswing a subset of Lindy Hop: "Jumpswing is a subset of Lindy Hop patterns rearranged to appeal to the energies and abilities of frisky beginners"[46] and the rationale for giving it a new name is a bit vague: "Following the lead of Skippy Blair and Sonny Watson, we smoothed out the rough edges, and introduced the swing-out much later in the syllabus. With all the changes, a name change also seemed appropriate..."[47] He changed the order in which steps are taught in Lindy Hop to make the dance more accessible to beginners and decided to give his dance syllabus/teaching method a new name?
If you look at the videos of jumpswing that there are links for in the article, they're dancing Lindy Hop with a neo-swing style (upright, very hoppy) but without a single swing-out.
It already states in the article that "The 6-count pattern is identical to 6-count Lindy Hop kick patterns." All of the variations can be found in Lindy Hop, as well as the so-called Retro Swing kick. Then it states "The 8-count pattern is the same as the basic Charleston pattern", which are the Charleston patterns found in Lindy Hop. So both the 6-count and 8-count patterns in jumpswing are Lindy Hop patterns.
Sonny's Retro Swing Dance Video, which is mentioned in the article, covers traditional East Coast Swing steps (Patterns / Steps) and Lindy Hop steps (Charleston, Charleston and Shag Kicks), as well as several jazz steps associated with Lindy Hop (Companion Dances explained and broke down). It looks like your typical dance video to teach people how to eventually Lindy Hop.

So is it noteworthy to call something a new dance because you decided to teach the swing-out (a basic step in Lindy Hop) at an advanced stage and mix in East Coast Swing steps? I would think not since this is not unusual. There are many dance instructors who would recommend beginners first learn East Coast Swing/6-count swing before starting Lindy Hop because ECS is easier to master. Since the swing-out is a difficult step to learn, it would naturally be mastered later. If someone already knows ECS, there's no reason why they would not toss in ECS steps while dancing Lindy Hop since the two dances mix together with no problems whatsoever. You can see people do this at swing dances.

If anything, jumpswing is a neo-swing style (upright, very hoppy) of Lindy Hop. That still doesn't seem noteworthy enough to have its own page.

A few more reasons why this article is not noteworthy:

All Google news hits for "jump swing" refer to the swing music style called jump swing.
The one and only Google new hit for "jumpswing" also refers to the swing music style called jump swing. "Introducing the newest form of MTV-ready alternative music -- jazz. ... That, in a nut, is Squirrel Nut Zippers..." (Squirrel Nut Zippers is a neo-swing band from Austin, TX)
All wikilinks to "neo swing" (found in Lindy Hop, Lindy hop today, and Talk:Swing revival, are also about the swing music style called jump swing, but currently are incorrectly being redirected here.
Any wikilinks to this article about a dance called jumpswing were created by User:Arieljoy, who created this article.
The article itself lists "Neo Swing" as a type of music that jumpswing is danced to but Neo Swing (in the article) is actually a wikilink to Swing revival. This wikilink was created by User:Arieljoy when the page was created, and supports the evidence that Neo Swing, aka Jump Swing/Jumpswing most commonly refers to a style of swing music that emerged during the swing revival of the 1990s.

If there has ever been a news article about "jump swing" or "jumpswing", it is about a style of swing music (swing music that became popular in the late 1990s), not a dance. Info about neo-swing/jump swing bands is already covered in Swing revival. Thus it would be more correct to redirect Neo swing, Neoswing, (Neo-swing, mentioned in History of Lindy Hop), Jump Swing, and Jumpswing to Swing revival. Currently, all redirect to Jumpswing. panda 04:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation: Redirect to Swing revival or Delete (in case it wasn't obvious). panda 20:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — as I understand it, the swing revival involved both the music and the dance style. I'm not sure that the distinction you're drawing between jump swing music and jump swing dancing exists; at any rate, this reference seems to be about the dance style, as do several of the references linked from here — for example, Google's excerpt for the Post-Standard reference reads, "... he will join other professional DANCE instructors IN presenting more than 30 workshops (on THE LINDY HOP, Charleston, shim-sham, jump SWING and more). ..." Seems notable to me. If needed, the article's lead can be tweaked to clarify that "jump swing" can refer both to the dance and the music. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your first reference, an article/advertisement written on 17 July 2003 titled "Jump, swing and dance" in The Sacramento Bee, is exactly what I have addressed in one of the points. It states in the article that "Instruction will combine classic swing steps with Lindy Hop patterns." This is ECS + Lindy Hop and is, as previously stated, the normal way that many swing/Lindy Hop instructors teach the dance.

The second article is about Frankie Manning, a Lindy Hop dancer, teaching at a Lindy Hop workshop in Syracuse, NY from 15-17 October 2004. The persons who taught jump swing were Kurt Lichtmann & Iska Ziver[48], still the same Cornell/Ithaca/jumpswing.com group.[49] The same pair also taught "jump swing" in 2003 at the 2003 Frankie Manning workshop in Syracuse.[50] (The first Frankie Manning workshop in Syracuse was in 2002 and there is no mention of jump swing at that workshop.[51] After 2004, there were no more Frankie Manning workshops in Syracuse.) The only people who seem to be teaching a dance called jumpswing are the Cornell/Ithaca/jumpswing.com group.

Just for the record, both of the articles you referred to are ones that you would have to pay to see the entire article. Especially from the 2nd example, it should be clear that just seeing "jump swing" in an article that also includes "dance" does not tell the entire story and you need to be able to read the entire article to understand if it is relevant to the discussion or not.

These are still minor points as the majority of references to jump swing refer to a type of swing music, not a dance. panda 06:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The body of the article talks about both the dance and the music. All that needs changing is the lead. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is still no evidence that jumpswing is taught anywhere outside of the Cornell/Ithaca/jumpswing.com group so there would need to be more changes to the article than just a change to the lead. (The majority of the article is about the dance.) If you read the music section of Jumpswing and compare it with the information in Swing revival, when the Jumpswing article is not talking about the dance, the music info is essentially the same as the info in Swing revival. If you feel the music info is important, then it should be merged into Swing revival. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that all of the info in the article comes from only one source: jumpswing.com. (The one exception is already noted above.) panda 07:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more point about the music, the article gives a general description of swing music and how it was characterized in the swing revival, but calls it Jumpswing instead. Jumpswing, more commonly spelled "jump swing" and also known as "retro swing" or "neo-swing" (and all of its spelling alternatives), was one of the names used to describe the type of music that neo-swing bands played during the swing revival of the 1990s/2000s, where a neo-swing band is a new swing bands that formed during that time period. The Jumpswing article currently states:

"An essential element to Jumpswing is the strong back beat of the up-tempo music to which it is set. This highly emphasized back beat, a product of the melding of swing and rock in the late ‘90s, is what distinguishes the Jumpswing style music from that of the traditional swing era, which employed a more even quarter-note beat. The back beat, beats 2, 4, 6, and 8 of the standard 8-count phrase, usually hit on a snare drum and reflected by other instruments in the ensemble, receive more emphasis in the Jumpswing style."

1. The music info appears to only come from Kurt Lichtmann, which brings us back to the Cornell/Ithaca/jumpswing.com group. If you look at Kurt Lichtmann's syllabus for PE146 - Intro To Swing, section B: Connect to the Music, it states:

"Listen before you dance. Find the strong quarter-note pulse. Listen to the bass and drums. Feel the backbeat, the drive on the even beats (2,4,6,8 of the 8-count phrase.) Stronger grooves have a snare drum backbeat."

Also from the jumpswing.com site, which is actually located in Kurt Lichtmann's web account at Cornell and written by Kurt Lichtmann, it states:

"Jumpswing dates to the late 1990's swing revival in southern California: Long Beach and Redondo Beach. Originally termed Retro or Jump or Neo Swing, it followed the regional post-punk, post-rockabilly enthusiasm, as many punk bands and mosh pit dancers converted to swing. The original music featured an up-tempo amalgamation of rock, jump blues, and big band swing - a strong backbeat is characteristic."

2. One of the essences of swing music is its strong back beat, as stated in the FAQ from rec.arts.dance:

"Swing music emphasizes the division of the beat a lot. That's the essence of the swing feel. Swing clearly divides in 2-beat units, and the music usually has strong backbeats that differentiate between the strong beat (downbeat) or the weak beat (backbeat)."

3. Furthermore, the swing revival was about the blending of swing music with rock & roll, which can been seen from the above text by Kurt Lichtmann at the jumpswing.com site and also found in swing revival:

"Most swing revival bands were based around a rock and roll rhythm section..."

–panda 14:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't usually say "per nom," but let's just say that I find the extensive case outlined above convincing. -Chunky Rice 11:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I changed my vote from previous nomination, because after more careful consideration it indeed appears that all information is coming from a single source, related to the article author hence it is original research. And no clai ms of notability beyond claims it is taught in a couple of studios (again, the claim comes from the same source). Mukadderat 17:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Somebody could take as much time on the article as they did with this deletion page.--Amadscientist 20:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reason for your decision? panda 23:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sole contributor didn't respond neither to first nor to this nomination warning in their talk page, and no one else seems to rush to prove the notability of the dance. So far it looks like a blatant advert of a new product. `'Míkka 15:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reasons stated on discussion page of the article. Steve Pastor 19:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps I should stick my two cents in here. Ya, Kurt here, in Ithaca. This is my first ever wiki entry, so please don't hurt me too much. This is not meant to be a scholarly point-by-point rebuttal, but a clarification of some key issues. First, I would like to thank panda, and josiah rowe, for thinking enough about jumpswing to present arguments for AND against retaining Arieljoy's fairly thorough jumpswing article in wiki, along with listing of jumpswing among the swing dance styles on the wiki swing dance page.

Unless one has seen a lot of the jumpswing dance or better yet, danced it, especially to appropriate uptempo strong backbeat music of recent decades, the distinctive qualities of the dance may not be apparent. Now, contrary to FAQ from rec.arts.dance description, listening to a lot of the swing era big band swing, you hear an almost EVEN swing beat. For the most part, in big band swing of the '30s, a backbeat (strong 2468) is only very subtly brought out. It is the late 1940s, with the advent of rhythm & blues and jump blues, one starts to hear strong backbeat, supported not just by the snare drums, but rhythm guitar, piano, and other instruments as well. Want references? Just go listen to a lot of music! The distinct feel of jumpswing dance is brought out most with hard-backbeat faster music, especially more recent music - fast motown, fast rock, and fast pop. If a person gave jumpswing an honest shot at trying to dance it, rather than just trying to figure it out from a web article or a couple of short lo-res videos, they might understand. As a start, it is boppier (up/down pulse) than fast lindy, and notably hits the backbeat nicely.

True, our jumpswing patterns are mostly a subset of fast Lindy, but the feel is different, as stated above. Again, the word is mostly - we have are cool adaptations from St. Louis Shag, Balboa, etc.

Now, suppose you saw an entire dance with no swing-outs, would you say that was Lindy Hop, even if there were a lot of charleston patterns and 6-count moves? Most lindy hoppers would say, "that's not lindy!" In jumpswing, even at a more advanced level that includes swingouts, the swing-out, although done, is not the focal move. Hence, jumpswing is a bit distinct in from common Fast Lindy.

Jumpswing is not a marginal dance style - well over 5000 students have taken the jumpswing classes at Cornell University since 1997. (Sorry, I am not gong to post the class lists to prove it.) Many of these students have taught it, and will teach it, informally to their friends, children, students, etc. elsewhere in the world as lives and careers continue.

Contrary to panda's research, there are indeed several teachers who teach a form of the jumpswing, and they state so on their web pages, http://stnydance.com/SwingClasses/, http://www.downeastdance.net/instructors.htm, and of course http://www.swingworld.com/.

Skippy student Greg Avakian taught jumpswing at Omega Institute (he still calls it Retro, though), Rhinebeck NY summer 2006 and 2007. Skippy Blair is the most the most notable jumpswing instructor. True, Skippy is known mainly for having trained national West Coast Swing National Champions, and for her teaching training workshops. So, jumpswing is not a high priority for her - no big shakes on her website. However, Skippy feels that this dance has a value, and hence she does teach jumpswing to instructors in her workshops, and with the name "jumpswing." Want verification? Email her.

I don't need to justify Jumpswing as a dance or its name to a PhD dissertation committee. However, I would like to present at least an understanding of the dance, and why we gave it that name. From there, people will do what they want. I feel that Retro and Neo fall short of Jump in terms of a description of the dance, for reasons above. Also, I alternately use the spelling jumpswing or jump swing, although I prefer the first. I hope this minor eccentricity does not disturb people too much.

Also regarding names, some people are now calling West Coast Swing "Westie." Is this problematic? Continuing the thought, "even" the Divine has an infinite number of names.

It does seem that Arieljoy referenced my jumpswing site heavily for the article. Well, for the moment, I guess I appear to be the most enthusiastic proponent of jumpswing dance on the web (as user panda has pointed out numerous times) - however, I have no need to be so. But, should that reflect negatively on the value of the subject matter? It is not unusual for one person in a region to be a leader, or even a creator, regarding a dance style, or of anything for that matter. It is simply an issue of enthusiasm, vision, motivation, and leadership. In a dance example, Beach Bop can be traced pretty much solely to Butch Berry in Jacksonville. And it is not to hard to research into the small handful of main movers and shakers for Balboa, Carolina Shag, Lindy Hop, etc.

I occasionally get anonymous hate email from individuals who just can't stand the idea of a "new" dance or a "contending" dance, or a "derivative" dance, or a "simplified" dance, or a "degenerative dance" or a "made-up dance" or I don't know what their issue is. And for some people, apparently "jumpswing" really turns on the red flashing lights - who knows why. Um, what is wrong with new dances? Isn't the fountain of creative life beautiful and fascinating?

As an amateur dance history buff, I am interested in, and explore various swing dance styles, both personally, and for instruction. I settled on jumpswing for my beginning swing students based on experiment, and on personal appreciation of the unity of this dance style with the relevant music styles. Here in Ithaca NY, at least, it is a living, growing, meaningful, worthwhile, distinct, yet derivative, dance style that pays homage to its sources.

I run into those deadset against jumpswing, trying to find ways to obscure it, distort it, hide it, get rid of it, we still love you. For those who see its value and support it, thank you. And with or without a wikipedia entry, jumpswing dance will continue to flourish, evolve, and be important and relevant to increasing numbers of dancers. Mrverynice 18:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Kurt: No one is questioning whether or not there are people dancing something that you've chosen to call jumpswing. The question is how notable it is. Beyond the Cornell/Ithaca/jumpswing.com group, there is very little, if any, evidence that it is even a recognized name for a dance. Three websites is not a numerous listing and is far below the number of news articles about a style of music called jump swing (aka neo swing, retro swing, and their variations).

Of the websites you mentioned, the first calls it "Jitterbug (Jump) Swing" on that one page and "Jitterbug Swing" on their main page, which leads me to believe that they normally call the dance they teach Jitterbug Swing.
The second is an ad for various dance instructors, only one of which claims to teach Jitterbug/Jump Swing. But this same instructor seems to normally call the dance they teach "Jitterbug Swing".(Jul/Aug 2007)
The third (Skippy Blair's website) does not mention jumpswing at all. The only reference to Skippy Blair and jumpswing are your own website. If someone has to email Skippy Blair to find out that she teaches jumpswing, that would be considered original research.
From Greg Avakian's website: "Greg Avakian has been teaching swing since 1992. He and his partner, Laurie Zimmerman have been dancing together for over 8 years. They specialize in Lindy Hop, West Coast Swing, and Blues Dancing." If he's learned/taught jumpswing, then he's doesn't appear to be calling it that.

Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to validate your name – jumpswing – for a dance that (even you have stated) has no agreed upon name or recognition in the swing dance community.

-panda 22:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm sorry for not responding to this discussion earlier. As I AM new to wiki writing, I was not exactly sure how such matters were handled. Yes, this was my first article and contribution on wiki, but I do not feel that these should be considered as reasons for deletion of my article. Everyone has to start somewhere, and wiki presents itself as open to new people as the Free Encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. As for responding to the recent attacks on this article:

if user panda is going present a believeable case against Jumpswing on wiki, he needs to present correct facts, not conjectures.

To start with, his comments below are conjectural, based on what is increasingly revealing itself to be a personal bias, leading me to request that his objections be considered in the light of that bias.

Quoting user panda:

"Of the websites you mentioned, the first calls it "Jitterbug (Jump)Swing" on that one page and "Jitterbug Swing" on their main page, which leads me to believe that they normally call the dance they teach Jitterbug Swing." CONJECTURE
"The second is an ad for various dance instructors, only one of which claims to teach Jitterbug/Jump Swing. But this same instructor seems to normally call the dance they teach "Jitterbug Swing"."(Jul/Aug 2007) CONJECTURE>
"...a dance that ...has no agreed upon name or recognition in the swing dance community." <comment> Panda presumes to speak for the "swing dance community.

This last comment by panda is a very big presumption. I would assert that user panda has no authority whatsoever to speak for the "swing dance community," because for one thing such a cohesive grouping cannot be said to exist; rather, the "swing dance community" consists of very diverse social groups, some large, some small, in many regions of the world, with diverse dance interests, and frequent disagreement about a variety of topics.

The objection that jumpswing has some aka's has no validity. Plenty of

dances, and other things as well have a diveristy of names. That reflects on their merit in no way whatsoever. Many sources alternately have called Lindy Hop, as Jitterbug, or Lindy, or even East Coast Swing, or Jive.

The objection that Jumpswing is foremost used as a name of a type of music

is an odd objection. Waltz is danced to waltz. Merengue is danced to merengue. Salsa is danced to salsa. Bachata is danced to bachata. Cumbia is danced to cumbia. Polka is danced to polka. Tango is danced to tango. I don't need to continue with this.

Not recognized? Jumpswing as a dance IS recognized by some considerable

authorities in the field, such as leading swing historian SONNY WATSON, links below at streetswing.com.

www.streetswing.com/video.htm

www.streetswing.com/histmain/z3booge1.htm

I admit that the majority of the sources I used came from Kurt's website and personal conversations with him. I have worked closely with Kurt, and much of my understanding and appreciation for Jumpswing, other forms of Swing, and dance in general have developed through this connection. I employed him as a main source of information because it seemed logical to me to rely on the information given by one of the innovators of the style. However, I realize that more sites recognizing jumpswing as a dance may be necessary, so here is a list:

keywen.com/Arts/Performing_Arts/Dance/Swing/

johnnymillett.tripod.com/retro_swing_video.htm

www.dancefanatics.com/WannaDance/linksdance.html

www.eijkhout.net/rad/dance_specific/swing.html

www.akswing.com/

www.activevideos.com/swing.htm

www.downeastdance.net/profilemainiacs.htm

www.savoyswing.com/community/links.asp

www.edu-cyberpg.com/IEC/video_favsMusicBoogie.html

This dance style, while looked down upon by some, does still exist and is recognized as a specific style. Any suggestions as far as improving the article to make it more appropriate for wiki are more than welcome, as this is still my first article, and thus more than likely could benefit from the opinions of more experienced wikipedians. Arieljoy 03:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that nobody is questioning whether or not Jumpswing exists, just whether it is notable, according the Wikipedia guidelines. -Chunky Rice 03:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Arieljoy: Like I wrote to Kurt, "No one is questioning whether or not there are people dancing something that you've chosen to call jumpswing. The question is how notable it is." I invite you to read what is considered notable by Wikipedia's guidelines. Also, the information that you've added to the page may be considered, by your own admission, original research as well as a conflict of interest (in the form of self promotion and close relationships).

Sonny Watson's video has already been addressed in an earlier point. Regarding the rest of your links, listing websites that do not contain any encyclopedic info (such as links to jumpswing.com or Kurt's previous url (http://members.tripod.com/~HitIt/) that now redirects to jumpswing.com, or sites that use the term "jump swing" to mean the style of music that will be played at a swing dance, or sites that duplicate the same info) do not help show that jumpswing is notable.
I do not claim to speak for the swing dance community. You and Kurt have both stated either directly or indirectly through the links you provided that the swing dance community does not have an agreed upon name for what you call jumpswing, as evidenced by the multiple names that I've seen on the websites you have both cited: Jumpswing, Jump Swing, Jitterbug Swing, Swing, Retro Swing, Neo Swing, Street Swing, Lindy, Lindy Hop, East Coast Swing, Big Band Swing, Savoy-Style Swing, Jitterbug, Boogie-Woogie, The Boogie, etc. Nor does the swing dance community recognize jumpswing, as evidenced by Kurt's comments above:

"I occasionally get anonymous hate email from individuals who just can't stand the idea of a "new" dance or a "contending" dance, or a "derivative" dance, or a "simplified" dance, or a "degenerative dance" or a "made-up dance" or I don't know what their issue is. And for some people, apparently "jumpswing" really turns on the red flashing lights - who knows why."
"I run into those deadset against jumpswing, trying to find ways to obscure it, distort it, hide it, get rid of it, we still love you."
and replies to the question "Definition of Jump Swing" on a National Swing Discussion Board (page 1 and 2) as well as the aerials thread mentioned in that discussion.

–panda 08:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNot notable Harlowraman 02:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable, no reliable sources. [52] G iggy\^Talk 07:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwikify. WjBscribe 22:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Table of characters in the Fire Emblem series

No references to support the Japanese names, no references to support the "Official English Names", has plenty of game guide material ("Make Sylvia meet the coupling goals, conquer Darna Castle in Ch. 7 and have Aless visit the castle"), has crap like "Traditional Internet Name" (wtf?); I dunno. Not only is this article a big violation of WP:NOT#IINFO, it isn't even useful since, if all the game guide material is removed, it would just list every character's name. Axem Titanium 04:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wikisource, as per WP:NOT - "Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic." Corpx 05:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and Delete per above. DurinsBane87 05:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Done a while ago The pages were transwikied to the Encyclopedia gamia under the Walkthrough sections of the respective fire emblem games --Cs california 09:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete per above statements. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 10:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Axem Titanium 05:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't delete transwikied material; you have to redirect it. Transwiki and redirect per above. — Deckill er 13:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"No references" is not a reason for deletion, but the other reasons given are okay so Transwiki. Kariteh 12:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource per above. Giggy ^Talk 23:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki 02:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Discgolfrules (talk • contribs).
Transwiki and delete as per above.Harlowraman 02:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete. I have deleted a bunch of POV crap which is the way forward with such articles not deleting them. TerriersFan 21:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

House of Wax (soundtrack)

This page is merely an orphaned page which is basically a glowing review of the movie in an unencyclopedic way. Virtually everything in this article is already in the House of Wax page. CattleGirl ^talk 04:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and edit to remove POV. Meets WP:MUSIC for album criteria. -Drdisque 04:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing remarkable about this album, and once the opinion and cruft is removed only a track listing remains. Faithlessthewonderboy 04:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge "leftover tracks" info to main article and redirect. Otto4711 12:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for cleanup. --Aarktica 20:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Harlowraman 01:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - What isn't notable about a soundtrack for a notable movie that was released and sold? AfD isn't a place to complain about crappy articles - Just tag them. G iggy\^Talk 07:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 23:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Morales

Non-notable stock broker, speedy tags constantly deleted by author Drdisque 04:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Completely non-notable. Article doesn't even attempt to establish notability. Faithlessthewonderboy 05:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correction The speedy tags were not removed by the author. They were removed by respected editors who thought this article didn't meet the CSD. In the future, please consult the history of the article to verify what you're saying. deranged bulbasaur 10:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first time, I believe, it was removed by the author. Point taken though. -Drdisque 18:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable. I'm not sure, I may have seen this before but an admin would have to check. Nuttah68 14:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No reliably sourced content to merge. WjBscribe 05:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terminator 2: variations in the special editions

WP:NOT#IINFO, just because something is true doesn't mean it should automatically be added to Wikipedia. Not a notable topic for an article either. Crazysuit 03:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this doesn't establish why the special scenes are notable, only that they exist. Axem Titanium 04:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR - article is written by a user watching the different editions and documenting the differences. Corpx 05:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Merge Some of this could perhaps be salvaged and included in the article for T2, but it doesn't get its own article. Faithlessthewonderboy 05:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep or merge, because the differences distinguish the various versions of a major blockbuster released in theaters on video and on DVD, but it does need sources, so I'll see what I can find and will add anything I come across. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Terminator 2 as a better alternative than delete. The title "variations in the special editions" is a lightning rod for deletion; this information is part of the rich history of a blockbuster film, and author has made it sound like a comparison shopping guide. Mandsford 14:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Carina22 15:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mandsford. Dbromage [Talk] 06:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a superior alternative to merging this unnecessary minutiae. Mowsbury 13:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete due to lack of independent reliable sources. Most of the arguments for keeping didn't address this concern; the one that attempted to do so was refuted. No prejudice against re-creation if sufficient sources can be found. — TKD::Talk 09:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic & Tails Spinner

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sonic & Tails Spinner

Is an arcade game notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article? Lacks WP:RS, all web search results mentioning this game are from Sega, the manufacturer. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 03:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, so what's your deletion criteria? All things removed, I'd say arcade games generally are worthy of an encyclopaedia article, even if this one is a bit stubby -85.210.30.61 03:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worth mentioning that since I wrote the above, the nominator has expanded on their reasons without noting it, making my remarks looks odd out of context -85.210.30.61 06:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above user. -Drdisque 04:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not because arcade games are inherently not notable but because this one is not notable. Axem Titanium 04:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This, just like any other article, needs significant coverage from independent sources to be notable. Corpx 05:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is a great example of the argument in User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy. I found it incrfedibly easy to find external, reliable sources on this arcade game. I'll add the official link and a neutral IMDB like site for video game's page on this game as well to a new section on external links. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not as notable as the Sonic video games, but notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Being veriable isn't the same as being notable. Of the two links added, one is Sega's site, so that isn't an independent source, and the other has no information on the game. Sources need to have significant coverage, not just the year. Crazysuit 04:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 04:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lachlan McMurdo

Apparent hoax. No Ghits on this person, who did not receive the Fields Medal, leaving no notability. (An Australian did win one in 2006, but it was Terence Tao) Askari Mark (Talk) 03:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 03:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as a hoax. --Scottmsg 04:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity/hoax -Drdisque 04:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A prominent grammar school student? I call shenanigans. Faithlessthewonderboy 05:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 13:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant hoax. —David Eppstein 14:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax, not a fields medal winner according to [53] --Xorkl000 07:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only potentially notable feature is apparently a falsehood. Euryalus 03:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as nonsense. --Peta 05:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't speedy - "AsdfOMGzaopihsf111" is nonsense. At least we recognise the language this non-notable article was written in. Giggy ^Talk 07:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeview Square Mall

Non-notable Mall. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 03:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability criteria. -Drdisque 04:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which notability criteria are you speaking of? I don't see any news coverage that makes this mall appear too notable. Delete. Axem Titanium 04:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though well written, article does not even attempt to establish notability. Faithlessthewonderboy 05:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Google doesn't turn up very much in the news archives. Non-notable mall. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 17:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Regional mall of 606,000 square feet of retail space, per article, Google News archives [54] has usual "events at mall, fight at mall, stores opening/closing, property sold" coverage. Not many about the mall per se. Edison 22:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article does not assert tne importance of the subject. It is another non notable mall. --Stormbay 22:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. IP198 00:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 05:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Burp's Bubbleworks

AfDs for this article:

Article was previously considered at AFD and has subsequently been nominated for deletion via the WP:PROD path; articles previously considered here are not eligible for PROD-based deletion. The previous AFD (March 2007) ended in no-consensus but had a low turnout of discussants. The person nominating for PROD deletion contends that the present article content "reads like advert, doesn't establish notability." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An individual ride at an amusement park with no assertion of notability. Resolute 03:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Crazysuit 03:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I voted to redirect last time, but I've learned quite a bit more about this since then. It's possibly the UK's best-known dark ride, notable and verifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article reads like a review. If someone wants to clean it up and add some sources establishing notability I'll reconsider. Nuttah68 14:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — TKD::Talk 09:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mall at Partridge Creek

Mall that is currently under construction, no apparent notability. About section reads like an advertisement. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 03:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't seem like an ad to me. Close to completion so isn't speculation. Large Malls like this one ARE notable as large structures. -Drdisque 04:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, being a large building does not automatically entail notability. If, say, this mall will be the largest building in all of Michigan, it might be notable but it isn't, so it's not. Axem Titanium 04:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does something really have to be the largest building in an almost 100,000 sq. mi. area to be included in wikipedia? If so there are thousands of articles that need deleting. -Drdisque 18:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "largest" is a valid criterion for inculsion, especially for malls (West Edmonton Mall, anyone?), but by no means the only crterion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unbiased keep as one of the article's major contributors. This mall seems to pass WP:RS and WP:V, and it doesn't read like an ad to me either. I don't think that large malls are inherently notable, but this one seems notable enough to me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 17:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Though just a regional mall, it has several refs with substantial coverage from major newspapers. Something does not have to fall back on mere superlative size if WP:N is satisfied by multiple independent references in reliable sources with substantial coverage. The stories do not seem to be mere reprints of a press release or wire story. Edison 22:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 05:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Powers

Character from a TV show, no apparent notability. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 03:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor character, 7 appearances. Any relevant information could easily be placed into the main Days article, or the article of characters with which she interacts. ^Ariel♥Gold 03:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No strong opinion, leaning towards Merge into List of Days of our Lives characters or a new, differently formatted list of minor characters. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of coverage from independent real world sources Corpx 05:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of real world coverage. If some coverage is forthcoming still only Merge to a minor characters article. Nuttah68 14:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. ¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 03:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Morel

Probably fails notability requirements for biographies, and Wikipedia is not a memorial site, as well as this is a previously deleted page, and redirected page was deleted multiple times. While I fully understand the desire for family and friends to see loved ones on Wikipedia, I also realize that the WP:NOT policy must be upheld, and it would appear this fails Biography notability requirements. I am hoping I don't get thrashed for nominating this, but I did a Google and the only news item I could find was this NCTimes memorial. ^Ariel♥Gold 02:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Original deletion was for copyvio of this source, which no longer appears to be the case. Notable with significant news coverage. This should be improved with further sources available from latter link. - Dean Wormer 03:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, well my google search found mostly memorial sites, which, while indicating the person's popularity, didn't confirm notability. However, seeing the other article deleted a number of times, one for the copyvio, but several others as well, I thought that rather than see it tagged with a CSD tag, I would bring it here in good faith. The article currently is using a strange table format, with colored background and broken borders, but if someone would like to take the project up and "adopt" it so to speak, honestly I'd rather see articles like this kept when at all possible. I've noticed other memorial sites deleted in the past, and while I fully understand the reasons, it does make me quite sad. So I'm encouraged to see that this may be kept! Feel free to WP:SNOW this closed if appropriate, I've left a notice as to the original reason for AfD, and an update following your comments on the article's talk page. Thanks! ^Ariel♥Gold 03:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

follow up**

I restored the page, cleaned a few things up, and definitely feel it is newsworthy and certainly reflects Valor, as recognized by the US President, it is sad that all of the 3500+ can not get a small tribute somewhere in Wikipedia A good link to actually see names and casualties is http://icasualties.org/oif/ to realize the sacrifice our young men have made in this effort. Swumpg 05:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that they deserve recognition, and I'm glad to see that this article may be kept. I helped remove that colored table that was incorrectly placed/formatted, and thanks for fixing the other stuff! ^Ariel♥Gold 05:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hope it is resolved and can stay. Don't dis my colored table, took a lot of work to make that (g) I will pass along a bit of advice to anyone looking for the BEST search engine (IMHO) is

Webferret (free) and does a tremendous job of ferreting out info on web pages. http://www.webferret.com/

Swumpg 05:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as the Navy Cross is an award given out about as rarely as the Medal of Honor, although it is of lower rank. stats (scroll down). MOH recipients don't even have a 100% keep record at AFD, I'm fairly certain. In any case no article should be written as a memorial to a person, it should only recognize their encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is certainly not a place to put "a small tribute" for each of the 4000+ coalition KIAs, only the notable ones. Is the Navy Cross notable enough, is the question. --Dhartung | Talk 05:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

This is current events, and the Battles for Falluja are an important part of the conflict, for historians and the public. As far as I know, Marine Jason Dunham is the only Medal OF Honor recipient, posthumous. Maybe in a few years after this mess is over, it can be archived, but for now, it should stay as a piece of history and valor for researchers. Swumpg 16:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Wikipedia does not have purely memorial articles, but the coverage in Slate is substantial, and there are other reliable secondary sources in addition to memorial sites and blogs, as well as a Navy Cross awarded for heroic actions. In other words, the argument for notability is recognition of unusual heroism by secondary sources, not just a memorial to someone who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The article needs to be imporoved using the coverage in those articles. Edison 22:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up to keep

Thanks for those supporting the Keep. I saw a reference somewhere to an article in Slate. I was tempted to add this link [| Fallen heroes link] but it is pretty personal by friends and military types. But in scrolling down, there is a great entry by M.A.M. that puts a lot in perspective. Comments by those that were there, There was more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but qualities of the man that led from the front. While I would love to fill Wiki with tons of links, references, to Brent Morel, Matt Maupin and 3500 other fallen names, one can only rely on people that are interested to follow the links to get a full picture of a person. Looper5920 worked with me a great deal to get the article away from a memorial to being a statement of fact as a newsworthy event. Looper5920 at that time was pretty far up on the editorial food chain in regard to the Military Project and Marines info. I hope it stays this time. Swumpg 21:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really do too, Swumpg, and I really think you've all done a great job with it. Yes, I'm the one who put it up here, but I did it on a general Google news search, and not the new archiving search that's available. (And more thanks to Dean for showing that to me!). I said it before, I would like this article to remain, if possible, despite the past deletions. Better it go through AfD than have a CSD tagged onto it. I also freely admit that I was wrong thinking he wasn't "notable", when I said that I meant in the biography sense, but I'm glad to be proved wrong. So thanks to everyone who helped improve it! ^Ariel♥Gold 22:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- more thoughts

all the comments, eg, add Slate quotes, etc, I was afraid would put it back in the Memorial category and make it more vulnerable to deletion. Simply citing the award commendation and Bio info is unbiased, and factual. I would love to go into the too rare bond between a father and son, Brent's bullheadedness, etc, but many of the links go into that. Brian Chontos, Willie Copeland also received the Navy Cross for their actions around that time, but their Wiki articles were deleted. Since I did not write them, I have no "dog in the fight", but would like to see them restored from archives if possible. As the unpopularity of this war increases, I would hope that the Valor of our troops can be remembered and supported. I guess I need to get off the soapbox. Swumpg 03:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete The argument, supported by most commenters, that this list represents a trivial intersection is convincing. With sourcing, the information could be placed in each individual's article, whereupon it might be appropriate for a cat. Present community consensus is that the information does not belong as a list. Xoloz 15:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of breast reduction recipients

AfDs for this article:

Surely this is just as indiscriminate as List of people with breast implants where it was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with breast implants (2nd nomination). If these women are notable for making their breasts smaller, it should simply be mentioned in their article. Spellcast 02:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Such a list should only include people who are notable because they made their breasts smaller, not people who are notable and just happen to have also reduced their breast size. As it stands, breast reduction is not so notable a subject as to warrant a list, as while it may seem interesting to some, it's a trivial compilation of information. Calgary 03:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Calgary. Trivial intersection. Resolute 03:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, Merge, or Morph This might make a good category, rather than a list (although I would certainly not want to fight that one either way). Alternatively it could be a sub-section of Breast reduction (although then it might be deleted per WP:TRIVIA). Tricky. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 04:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial intersection of data. Axem Titanium 04:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I see no reason to keep articles which list people by surgeries they've had, as it'd be a list of loosely associated items Corpx 05:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this seems like a trivial intersection. Why is knowing who had breast reductions important, or encyclopedic? Why is this an important or notable attribute of a person? What does this say about the people's commonality -- besides "very little". --Haemo 05:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. I'm surprised this was kept last time around. Otto4711 13:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "I'm surprised this was kept last time around." That's what can happen when a ring of deletionists aren't notified of the NfD in advance and valid arguments for keep are presented. David Hain 07:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, people who respond with incivility and fail to assume good faith sure aren't very nice. Otto4711 15:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"very nice" Making double-veiled personal attacks is cowardly behavior. (And I don't need to cite rules or post a masked link [cowardly] to some off-site decidedly uncivil essay to validate this statement.) David Hain 17:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As with breast implants, this a certain type of elective surgery that merits its own article. I think I voted to keep the former, but the right thing to do there would be to merge as well. Does it matter which actresses underwent a particular type of surgery, such as a facelift or a nose job? Arguably, it does, to the person who is thinking about a certain procedure. Plastic surgery is common enough, and sufficiently risk-laden, that it's worthwhile to know about the experiences of others. Mandsford 14:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Information should be added to individuals' articles on a case-by-case basis (hopefully better sourced than just the IMDB) but a list article of who's had what surgery is unenecylopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Non-arguments. When such information is added to individual articles it's quickly removed, as was done with the Drew Barrymore article. To say that this list is sourced by IMDb is falsehood; all the linked IMDb pages quote published sources. "Unencyclopedic" has been so overused by lazy deletionists it's become meaningless. David Hain 07:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed by an anon on the Drew Barrymore page without explanation, so you can reinsert it. Spellcast 15:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The nom is groundless. Indiscriminate my arse -- this subject is more noteworthy than much of what's on Wikipedia. When a celebrity announces she's had a breast reduction, or even when there's the slightest speculation she's had the surgery, it's all over every newsstand and tv talk show in the western world. So if people are so hungry for this information, why can't Wikipedia provide it in a straightforward, reasonably accurate manner? David Hain 07:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't how much coverage this gets, it's how encylopedic this is. I'm sure these deleted articles got a lot of media coverage, but were still unencylopedic: Celebrity feud and Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump Controversy. The info belongs in the main biography. These celebrities are notable for the work they have accomplished in television/film and not because they decided to have their breasts reduced. So it's a trivial intersection to categorise them like this. Spellcast 15:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete more suited in a cat.--JForget 00:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't about notable women in general who have had the surgery, but apparently about those in the entertainment field in one way or another where it has either been widely public knowledge or in some way relevant to their career. Possibly the article would do better if this were spelled out, and even retitled. DGG (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with breast reduction. hmwith talk 22:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable and sourced, not an indiscriminate list, but a list with a clear criterion for inclusion. "Unencyclopedic" is increasingly becoming a substitute argument for "I don't like it." The sourcing could be better, and the list might be organized in a more interesting manner, but this is perfectly valid list. Dekkappai 00:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But these people are not primarily notable for reducing their breasts. So it's a trivial intersection. These are notable people who just happened to have breast reduction surgery. Spellcast 05:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteas per nom.Harlowraman 02:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense. NawlinWiki 19:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Anich

Nothing but a hoax, search brings up a short sentence written by a high schooler. Article created by User:Anich019. T Rex | talk 02:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pure vanity fantasy. --Evb-wiki 02:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject appears to be a reporter for this school paper. No information could be found about either him, in connection to sports, or in connection to his "fiancee" Barbara Susi. ^Ariel♥Gold 03:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. --Scottmsg 04:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 02:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kern's

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kern's

Delete. I'm pretty sure that this department store was in no way notable. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 02:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one store, only open 50 years, closed 50 years ago, did not become part of something larger.-Drdisque 04:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Edison/Dhartung. -Drdisque 01:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kern's was one of the three major department stores in Detroit, which for much of the store's existence was the fourth largest city in the US. In that era people traveled to major cities just to shop at department stores. Google News Archive for ernst.kern+detroit and Google Books results for detroit kern's store show the company was written about extensively and remains a historical presence in downtown Detroit even today. In short, at one time this was one of the most important stores in the country, and notability does not expire. --Dhartung | Talk 06:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a leading department store in a major city. 50 years is a reasonably long run, and notability does not expire. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, two reliable sources are cited in the article. Seems to pass WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as satisfying WP:N and WP:ORG. Per Dhartung, the article already has 2 book refs, and more info can be added from the books listed in Google Books. In the Google News archive, excluding humdrum "arrival of buyers" or "Santa arrives" articles, there are at least 7 with substantial coverage of news/history of the store, such as labor disputes and the commercial decline of old Detroit stores. Notability is satsfied by the historical record, and does not go away because people forget about the subject, or because it does not leave a footprint in the present. Edison 15:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tuart Hill Primary School

Article is about a non-notable primary school which has no sources and looks like it was written by someone who liked that school and possibly also as an advertisement. Delete per those elements--JForget 02:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Asserts no notability, cites no sources. - Dean Wormer 02:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete School is mentioned in the article Tuart Hill, Western Australia. Not notable enough to require its own article. The most notable thing I could find was that three triplets from Australia were going to attend the school. ^Ariel♥Gold 03:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 14:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tuart Hill, Western Australia - nothing more to merge. TerriersFan 15:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tuart Hill, Western Australia - nothing currently in the article worth keeping. Camaron1 | Chris 15:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article cites no sources that assert importance. It appears non notable. --Stormbay 22:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as failing WP:V and WP:N. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I'd hate for the fact that it was founded on April 25, 1910, and that it provides quality education to be lost. --ForbiddenWord 15:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep There appear to be OR issues in some sections (such as the section on the contemporary United States). However, most of the article appears to be well-sourced. Some sections may have POV issues and that should be resolved on the talk page, not at AfD. The argument that this article should be deleted because similar articles about other religions were deleted is not persuasive. JoshuaZ 15:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical persecution by Christians

AfDs for this article:

This article was previously kept at AfD, in a closure by a non-admin who had already commented in the discussion. DRV overturned the result. This is a new debate on the same question. Delete, given inherent NPOV violation. Xoloz 02:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per consensus of deletion of Historical perecution by X, POV. Given the title, I am confused why there is a "contemporary" section. - Dean Wormer 02:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article attempts to suggest a stronger connection than actually exists between a series of historical events, as though to suggest that the religious persecution is somehow systemic, or somehow just as notable as the individual incidents. Take note that an overview of all religious persecution carried out by a specific group is not inherently of historical interest, unless these incidents are connected, although while the article does much to suggest a connection, it does little to actually establish one. Calgary 02:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - why is persecution of Christians NPOV, but Historical persecution by Christians not? This isn't a rhetorical question btw, and I am aware of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but it does seem rather odd -85.210.30.61 03:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several of those for deletion in this AFD have named problems that should be addressed by cleanup, not simple deletion. The fundamental questions are: A. Is this topic notable through significant coverage in reliable, published sources? The answer is yes. B. Is this article's subject framed in a way that allows a neutral point of view? The answer is again yes. Acknowledging that many reliable sources are of the opinion the Christianity was the stated impetus for acts of violence and repression is not the same as violating NPOV. With the proper attribution, an article on this topic need not ever patently confirm that these acts were religiously motivated. But the many sources, ancient and contemporary, that cover this exclusively bely the idea that this is a fringe or original research topic. What's next? An AFD for the Spanish Inquisition and The Crusades? As to the relisting, there was a clear majority consensus for keep, especially considering that the first nominator gave no reason in his listing. VanTucky ^(talk) 04:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This, just like the others, looks to me as violation of WP:SYNTH in taking persecutions that occurred over time by unrelated parties and grouping them all in this big net Corpx 05:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per VanTucky. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ridiculous. Should not have been relisted in the first place, and that drv is hardly showing a consensus itself is it? Valid topic, relisting an article for AfD (thats a clear keep anyway) just because another article has been deleted is an absurd practice. —Xezbeth 06:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus to relist arose because the previous AfD was closed by a non-admin with a stated bias. If you read the AfD nomination here, you'd see that yourself. Xoloz 13:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD was closed because it was a blatant keep that shouldn't have been relisted. What if I had closed it, would that have been alright? —Xezbeth 15:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would up to consensus to determine that, if it were brought to DRV. You're an admin, so you'd have a better standing, but you had also commented in the debate, so who knows? Your less-than-well-thought-out comment above (apparently, you didn't bother to read my nomination before you commented the first time!) certainly suggests you're too involved to be closing an XfD on this matter. Xoloz 18:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I state bias? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As should be obvious to you, you commented "Keep" well before you closed the thing. No one should close a debate he has commented it. Xoloz 14:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Jews (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Muslims (2nd nomination). Also may be a violation of WP:SYTH and WP:OR, a random collection of facts grouped together under one title in near violation of WP:NPOV. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Other Historical persecution articles don't set a precedent in this case, as deletion arguments for those included (1) inadequately sourced and (2) not enough information for an entire article. Neither of these criticisms apply to this article, which is well sourced and quite detailed. I'm not sure how this constitutes WP:SYNTH, as the only position it appears to advance (i.e., that historically, Christians have been involved in persecution on religious grounds) is well documented by the sources used. This seems to me to negate the point of the entire "synthesis" argument. As to the contemporary section, I have become convinced since the last AFD that it is appropriate (providing an overview as it does of modern issues that may be considered historical). Since the last AFD, I have removed some original research from this section, thus addressing concerns that were raised during that AFD. JulesH 09:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As regards NPOV concerns, I can't see why this is an issue. WP:NPOV requires us to "[represent] fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." If a significant view that has been published by a reliable source on this subject is not covered, there is no reason it cannot be added. This becomes an article cleanup issue, not a deletion one. JulesH 09:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep editconflicted, anyway, per vanTucky and JulesH. Deniz^T_C 09:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please do not relist this AFD, it causes commotion. Deniz^T_C 09:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Deacon of Pndapetzim --Vonones 10:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In all fairness, you should re-list "Historical persecution by Jews" and "Historical persecution by Moslems", which were up for debate on a different day and which were deleted. I think that's one of the problems for why the decision was overturned on review, but nominator is simply repeating the same mistake. I can understand why the original nominator of those three articles didn't lump them together... but I can't, for the life of me, figure out why the same nominator wouldn't put them all up in the same day's debate, because it got the inconsistent results that you're seeing right here. My vote on this, and everyone else's for that matter, is meaningless since you're getting one result for mean Christians, a different one for mean fellows from other religious groups. I guess we can all make our comments, but for the reasons listed, this is a silly debate that is just as silly on the second go-round. I know you administrators work hard at sorting through the debates, but I'm afraid that in this case, you folks are missing the point. List all three, or don't list any of them. Mandsford 14:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of the topics you state are clearly notable, but that doesn't mean that the pages in question are worth keeping. It may be better sometimes to start over from scratch. — RJH (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — More than sufficiently notable. — RJH (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's happened, it's documented; the alleged propensity of this particular religious group to persecute parts of itself and other groups is well covered by multiple works dealing with the subject; the article could and should be much improved, but that's an editing question. I'd suggest reworking it in a more general way, and perhaps dividing it. DGG (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is a worthless POV laundry list which is essentially OR. Individual articles about specific incidents serve the purpose that this article supposedly does, without the OR and POV connection of the incidents as some sort of releated thread throughout history. The article was a synthesis of the editors. Not a single source cited in the article deals with the overarching theme. In otherwords the cohesive theme of the article was synthesized by the editors, not by any source. The article is irredeemable OR, a hodgepodge synthesis of historical events concocted by editors. One incurable defect is that the article is a POV magnet, resulting in a fatally flawed article with trash for substance and trash for sources. Mamalujo 08:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do see several books there that seem to be dealing with the subject. Check Historical_persecution_by_Christians#Literature. Also if it is a POV magnet, just try and 'demagnetize' it. We have WP:DISPUTE for a reason. We don't just go around and delete the 'sensitive' articles. Deniz^T_C 15:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I am quite unhappy that Persecution by Muslims got deleted, it's no reason to delete this one too. This article is also much better sourced and referenced than the Muslim one. Deleting it just because another article has been deleted is an absurd practice. It's also absurd to claim that "historical persecution by Christians" must be/is "OR" or doesn't exist, like some seem to do. --Voidocore 14:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no reason the others could not be improved and re-submitted. Consensus can change. Sometimes discussing other articles of a type clarifies the issues.DGG (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If persecution of muslims doesn't exist, neither should this article.--Sefringle^Talk 07:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 07:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article inherently implies a stronger connection between unrelated instances of persecution than is likely to exist (and the article topic doesn't appear to be a feature of academic discourse - correct me if i'm wrong here). whatever useful information exists in the article can easily be relocated to articles sorting persecution by victimised group. ITAQALLAH 17:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are going to be accusations of bias whatever is decided so better be accused of bias for keeping than deletion. However I have problems with this article as , in that events of the French Wars of Religion are refered to but there is no mention of the conflict, that there is no mention of the Thirty Years' War, no mention of Bloody Mary's persecution of the Protestants, nor of her sister's counter persecution of the Catholics. The article as it stands reads like an attempt by stealth to write an "Atrocities and massacres committed by Christians" article, and this tendancy needs to be resisted.KTo288 19:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Keep --SkyWalker 06:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Article is merely a well-constructed list of several unrelated events. 87.127.44.154 06:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted (copyvio). --- RockMFR 20:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P. C. Isaacs

I came across this about a day ago when RC patrolling. The author asserted some notability so I bookmarked this in a "Check back" folder. But I couldn't find multiple, third party sources on this person. Just that one reference in the article. Spellcast 02:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any further reference to this person. - Dean Wormer 03:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Copyvio: This actually appears to be a substantial copy/paste from this article. Nearly word for word, with just minor formatting changes. ^Ariel♥Gold 03:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 14:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G12 as copyvio, even minor format changes equal copyvio. So tagged (for some reason, Twinkle kept choking on that request). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedied. android 79 02:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L2 Marks

I don't understand what this article is saying. It seems to violate WP:NOT#INFO. Shalom ^Hello 01:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A1, no context, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 02:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - There is a web page link in the text which normally is SPAM. There are sources. And it makes no sense. Brusegadi 02:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.. CitiCat^♫ 23:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swanky beer

User:Fitzpatrickjm and I have been in discussion over the article: User_talk:SilkTork#Swanky_beer. Essentially, there is no available evidence to show that Swanky Beer is anything other than the Cornish name for homebrew. Same as scrumpy is another name for cider. The name has been used by brewers in Australia who are descended from Cornish miners. Currently the name is being used by Copper Coast Wines for a brand of beer. Under notability guidelines the product should be detailed under the company: [55] or put here for discussion for deletion: [56]. My proposal is that the article should be rewritten as a brand and merged with the organisation, and all Wiki-links to Swanky Beer being a beer style should be removed. SilkTork 22:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GreenJoe 21:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I know nothing about this as a beer in Cornwall or Australia, but I do recall that the New Knoxville Brewing Company (Knoxville, Tennessee, USA) produced a beer by that name several years ago, supposedly reviving a brand name of a beer brewed locally before Prohibition in the United States. I found an online article about the subject: http://weeklywire.com/ww/11-16-98/knox_gamut.html --orlady 03:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was interested in that article. However it is difficult to know what they are talking about. The name Swanky exists -[57] - it means something posh or special. There is, unfortunately, no indication that their Swanky beer brand (with cartoon images of bears) had anything to do with the Cornish homebrew. SilkTork 07:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of both the Swanky article and the Copper Coast Wines article.

I find the suggestion that the two articles be amalgamated in the manner proposed is extraordinary! Swanky is a well known type of beer.

It is not exclusively produced by Copper Coast Wines. It was produced by other brewers prior to Copper Coast Wines commencing production.

There is ample evidence regarding the existence of Swanky as a distinct product. Numerous websites are referred to in my article about the subject.

Also, since I wrote both articles, I tend to believe I have a reasonable understanding regarding their respective order of precedence.

Finally, I should point out that I am a resident of South Australia where I have:

visited the Kernewek Lowender, where they serve Swanky;
inspected the brewing of Swanky by Copper Coast Wines;
held in my hand old bottles of Swanky, including the 1973 Coopers Brewery Swanky.

Deleting the Swanky article would be a disservice.

I do hope that other people will support this article!!!!

Fitzpatrickjm 10:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fitzpatrickjm is new, and so isn't aware of the complex nature of Wiki procedures. He has been canvassing for support for the article: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cornwall#Retention_of_Swanky_beer_article. No blame, no foul. Though members of the WikiProject Cornwall should be reminded that this is not a vote (WP:DEMOCRACY, WP:POLLS, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#AfD_Wikietiquette etc), and that good arguments are better than vote stacking. SilkTork 15:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep google does suggest its use both as a Cornish special occaision beer - not run of the mill home-brew, and as an Australian brand. I'd like to see more on the history of the term in the article (including the American usage referenced above) - but a need for expansion is not grounds for deletion. DuncanHill 14:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you provide the links. I did a search on Google and found no evidence for Swanky being a style of beer. There is no reliable source. No beer writers or beer organisations have recognised Swanky Beer as a style. That there are brands of beers brewed in Australia called Swanky I am not disputing (though I would question their notability) - but I see nothing out there, and nothing in my experience to suggest that Swanky is anything more than a local name for home brewed beer. A reputable source is what is needed, otherwise we could have Kentish Ale, Cornish Beer Yorkshire Beer etc. There's way more evidence for these terms than Swanky, but they are understood not to relate to beer styles. SilkTork 15:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Swanky has been served at the South Australian Cornish Festival since 1973. It is well recognised in South Australia, and in particular in the Copper Coast region. Sandyshores 02:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* User's first edit. Account created on 18 August. SilkTork 08:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan 01:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As there seem to be a number of competing claims to the name here use this as a disambig. Individual claims can be built from here and stand or fall on their own merits, rather than trying to judge an AfD on numerous competing claims. Nuttah68 14:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.. CitiCat^♫ 23:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White British

No such thing as a White British ethnic group and certain editors are using the page to bring about ethnic revisionism by perpetuating this misguided notion. It is only a census classification and has no historical basis. A redirect is desired to the census, or to a disambiguation page linking to the native ethnic groups of the United Kingdom Michael ^talk 01:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*delete merge some of it in the rare event there's anything good in it, because, all the 'meaty' bits of this are surely already in Demography of England. It even stops discussing one classification, and discusses all the others.Merkinsmum 01:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge anything useful with Demography of England. What is encyclopedic about an ethnic classification used in a census? - Dean Wormer 02:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Commission for Racial Equality [58] disagrees with you that there is "no such thing as a White British ethic group", so, irrespective of the article's current contents, seems notable. Compare and contrast with White American, which seems to be a similar sort of article, or Black British. -85.210.30.61 04:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The commission explicitly denies the existence of the English, Scottish or Welsh ethnic groups through its lack of recognition for them. A denial of history, and the rewriting of it, something that this article also seeks to do. "White British" is simply a reaction to the newly-created "Black British". Michael ^talk 04:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"White British" is a term used on the census and acknowledged by the government's department for racial equality. Why shouldn't it exist, even if just for regurgitating census facts and/or to explain the term? I don't see why it's a "denial of history" at all - by that sort of reasoning, would you be against all similar articles based on the fact the human race originally evolved in Africa? It's a term used /right now/. I completely disagree with you. -85.210.30.61 04:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a term that has its origins in government bureaucrats, not in history or heritage, and certainly not in recognition of ethnicity. It should be defined for what it is: a (misguided) census term, and nothing more. Michael ^talk 04:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, a straw poll of me alone, I would describe myself "White British" above anything else regarding my ethinicity, so I disagree that it's misguided, and even if it /was/ misguided, surely the existence of the term, as used by the census and at least one major government body, is enough to justify an article explaining its existence and related statistics? To me, this nomination seems to be based primarily on your own personal distaste for a term rather than anything else. -85.210.30.61 05:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, Per Dean Wormer. Merge useful info with United Kingdom Census 2001, and other such articles if need be. Article is pointless and a magnet for content disputes. Especially bad is that article writer has turned a government neologism into an "ethnic group" article complete with template, origin narrative and prominent historical members such as William Shakespeare and Isaac Newton to whom "British" would have meant a Welsh person, which is borderline violation of WP:OR. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The term "White British" is an official term used by the British Census. It is reified in police reports which defines whites as light-skinned Europeans, excluding dark-skinned Europeans. The term "white" is widely used as a racial descriptor in Britain (source), so the term is not unique to the UK Census.----^DarkTea© 08:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article is White British, not White people in the United Kingdom. Your argument therefore crumbles to a pile of rumble. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete For reasons already stated, regarding the term's lack of historical or ethnic basis. Michael ^talk 08:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very strong keep, with the increasing racial diversity in Britain, White British are becoming a more and more distinct group, and certainly one worth an encyclopaedia entry --Phral 08:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't an ethnic group, it's a census classification. Ethnic groups are the English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh. You can't masquerade a census classification as an ethnic group; it's illogical.

As for, "increasing racial diversity" and a "more distinct group", it's a artificial grouping by bureaucrats, not an established ethnic group, with genealogical, historical and cultural characteristics. Michael ^talk 08:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do see that Britons is exclusively about whites so I'm not hyper-concerned about this distinction. However "British people" redirects to "Britons" which I don't think is accurate and "British people" should probably have the content of this article. To my understanding of the terms, "Britons" are the indigenous people of Britain, and "British people" are members of all the primary white ethnicities found there, and asian and negro immigrants are none of those - they are at most "British citizens". So my proposal would be keep this article but move it and redirect "white british" to "british people" and remove the redirection of "british people" to "britons". Something along those lines. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 08:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Dark Tea is canvassing for votes, in violation of WP:Canvassing: messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise those discussions and are generally considered disruptive:
The White British article is being proposed for deletion by anti-white forces. Please help as soon as possible.- [59] [60] [61].
This has resulted at least in the votes of User:Fourdee and User:Phral. Presumably User:KarenAER will add her say soon. Regards, ⋅Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notifying others is not necessarily canvassing if it's not large scale spam (although the tone of the message sounds a bit like it). To tell a few people whom you know will be interested that an article is up for deletion is appropriate. I actively edit articles on this sort of topic. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 08:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment I did not know of WP:CANVASS, since I don't usually do AFDs. The policy says "after engaging in cross-posting to promote some vote, be sure to remove those cross-posts after it is over. " I will delete my canvassed posts.----^DarkTea © 08:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  See WP:Canvassing: messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise those discussions and are generally considered disruptive, and then compare wording quoted above [62] [63] [64]. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

" ...anti-white forces. Please help... " pretty much gives away the fact she's trying to influence the outcome. Michael ^talk 09:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, besides WP:CANVASS, comments which, whether meant that way or not, imply holders of a certain position to be racist ("ant-white") are very serious contraventions of WP:NPA.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I sense a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT amongst some of the deletion calls. Ethnic groups are not always as clearly defined and uncontroversial as some of the above posters seem to be implying. Take for example the above statement: "Ethnic groups are the English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh" - well for a start that's left out the Cornish! "White British" is an official term used by the census and other bodies to describe a defined group. Yes there are defined sub-groups within it - the 2001 census in Scotland had "White Scottish" and "other White British" as options - but this is the overall grouping. That it is used by several key bodies in the field (and the census classifications are used by a lot of other organisations for their own data) is evidence that the term has currency. It is clearly of encyclopedic note. If the term is contentious then this should be covered on the article, not have the whole thing deleted to satisfy one POV. Timrollpickering 09:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of it being a census classification is not disputed—it's accepted. But as an ethnic group, it is nothing of the sort, and must not masquerade as one. Dark Tea's illogicality has brought about all these nonsense articles on Wikipedia, and she and her comrades seem to be under the illusion you can get a race (a colour), stick it somewhere, and hey presto!—a new ethnic group.

My recommendation is for it to be a disambiguation page stating that it is a census term, with links to the native ethnic groups (Welsh, English, Cornish, Irish, Manx, Scottish, etc) of the United Kingdom. Michael ^talk 09:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, as philosophical matter and as pertains to this article, definitely support retaining the actual ethnic group names as distinct. As I mentioned above I think we have a broader issue with this, which is that "british people" is being treated as a synonym (by redirection) for "briton" which is definitely is not. British people means something like what this article "white british" covers. I think White British should perhaps be kept as a reference to the census category, British people should have more or less the remainder of the content from this article, and Briton should discuss britons to the exclusion of later immigrants to britain (while redirecting readers to british people for a discussion of all white natives of the british isles). At any rate there may be some solution that can be drafted without going through with the article deletion process. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 09:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Can I suggest:~~

~~White British to be a disambig as I stated earlier~~
~~Briton to carry information on the native peoples, their movements, history, etc (overview)~~
~~British people to redir to Briton~~

Michael ^talk 09:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "Briton" could be a Welsh-speaking person before the modern period. Usage of the term to mean modern British people is pretty new and confusing. "Briton" should be a dab page. Everything "ethnic" about the supposed modern "British ethnic group", which has almost no existence outside wikipedia, should be on British people. Census stuff should be on United Kingdom Census 2001. There's no need to replicate the contents of those articles for nothing more than a POV content dispute magnet. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. Horrible terms to define, as anybody can apparently be a 'Briton' these days. Michael ^talk 09:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The White British content can't be merged into British people. If the British people article only deals with indigenous British, then all the UK Census sources can't be used. The UK Census sources do not define a White British as only the indigenous peoples of the UK. The UK Census defines a White British to be the indigenous British in addition to whomever else thinks they are white as a write-in response.----^DarkTea © 09:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The UK Census appears to be one that is incorrect when it comes to identification, whitewashing (ho ho) the identities and nations of the indigenous people. Agree with Deacon's suggestions. Michael ^talk 09:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article seems to be mainly about demography and not about any ethnic group, as any reading will confirm. Ethnic group articles are different to articles about demography. We have an article about the Demographics of the United Kingdom. Besides which we also have an article Briton, which is a (disputed) ethnic group article. Use of the term "White" seems to exclude this article from being about any ethnic group because ethnic groups are socio-cultural concepts, for example a Black British person may still identify and be identified as a Briton or British person. So the ethnic group would be Briton, the demographics of the UK do not represent an article about an ethnic group. This article does not even attempt to discuss what social, cultural, linguistic or religious factors are important in identifying this "ethnic group". Alun 10:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment lets try and stick to whether this is worth an article rather than arguing the issues.:) (As a white British person myself, I don't see how anyone can say we don't exist, surely it's just as accurate as the phrase black British used to describe those who are black and living in the UK, no matter what their family's previous country of origin, but still.) The thing is that a lot of this article's info is in other articles. However, it does feel as though seeing as how we have the article Black B, why not white B? I agree with the person above that a person can be black B and a lot of other identifications too, but Black British has an article. However a lot of the info here is in Demographics of the United Kingdom.Merkinsmum 12:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We've already seen from the link posted above the Commission for Racial Equality consider this an ethnic grouping. Term is widely used in documents relating to racial equality (e.g. [65]) and in newspaper reports about racial issues. JulesH 13:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 17:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Racial paranoia police strikes again. JRWalko 17:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! - 'tis a construction, but that is no reason for exclusion! ●Farenhorst 17:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to take simple census category and present an elaborate novel narrative about how this is actually some completely distinct ethnic group that is now experiencing "racism." The Behnam 23:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep - verifiable, broadly used term and/or ethnic group. Used by CRE, police, ONS, media, and certainly not original research. Very worth while to keep as an article regardless of if people identify with the group or not... we have articles on minor Star Wars characters - White British really should not be considered for deletion as an encyclopedic entry! Jza84 23:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a reliable, verifiable source can be found that says it is anything else than a census definition. Census definition do not necessarily correspond to any ethnic or social definitions. It should also preferably be a secondary source, as opposed to a primary one.--Ramdrake 00:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Like the Home Office's Self Defined Ethnicity codes? Or in the media? Jza84 13:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - These are more census definitions and uses of census definitions. No encyclopedic value in and of itself, except maybe in List of census definitions in the United Kingdom.--Ramdrake 13:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If this article is to be deleted then so should British Asian, which is merely a census category that includes the ethnic groups Pakistani, Indian and Bangladeshi (which could be further sub-divided into Punjabi, Kashmiri etc.) in the same way that "White British" includes the English, Scots and Welsh. I do not see why a group made up of 50+ million people should not have an article dedicated to it whereas a group of 2.5 million people does. Romper 15:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then, name it for deletion. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't usually a good argument for keeping an article. I stand by my argument that a census definition by itself isn't of encyclopedic value.--Ramdrake 18:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they used it in the census as a classification, so its notable. whether it has any real ethnological or even political basis does not concern us, DGG (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Per nom. Or merge to Demography of England. This is only a census definition. There is a White people article that is also striving to make it White Europeans. White British is not a distinct group. There are more white people, British or otherwise, in the world than any other "color". - Jeeny ^Talk 05:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you regard White American as a distinct ethnic group? Or Black British? etc etc -81.179.151.230 13:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. - Jeeny ^Talk 15:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why? Jza84 16:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I will not explain why, because it would clutter this page, as this is about White British.
        But you're conjecture is flawed and confusing. I'm probing for greater understanding. Jza84 13:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It's a statistic, a census definition, that people can chose whatever they self-identify with. Also, census forms are ignored by many people, so either do not send them back to the government, or refuse to participate. It is not mandatory to comply with census. So census attempts a "sampling", rather than an accurate count. Also, census data is not only to identify race, in the way some people, I feel, think it does. Census data is for many reasons including representation of in government for citizens, health issues, infrastructure, etc. I am certainly not one of the "anti-white forces", as few others say is the reason for motives of other's support for deletion. JSYK. - Jeeny ^Talk 02:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Just for the record, in most countries you're legally obligated to comply with a census else get a fine. -81.178.126.124 19:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        In most countries, you're legally obligated to fill out the census survey. That doesn't prevent you from choosing whatever census category you feel you're a best fit for, neither does it change the fact that census categories, insofar as I'm aware, are distinctly un-encyclopaedic.--Ramdrake 19:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Even in the US there is a small fine (on paper only), yet I doubt ever enforced nor imposed, for those who do not fill out the forms. (off topic) Also in the US it's against Federal law, (fine of $50), to stand in front of the yellow line of a bus. (There's a big sign stating so). I don't know about now. But when I grew up in Boston, and the few times I actually used the bus, when the buses were more often so crowed that not only were people bunched and mashed together over the yellow line, but on the steps leaning on the door!) but let me tell you, no one, I mean no one, has been arrested, nor fined for it. lol. (Back on topic) The race or ethnicity of British people is to assure equal opportunities for minorities is but ONE reason for the census. I do not believe that White British is a minority. See: Why have a census? - Jeeny ^Talk 20:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - could we not simply Redirect this to the White people article (obviously merging in any properly-sourced, balanced, non-POV material at the same time)? Just a suggestion... --Mais oui! 06:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions. -- Mais oui! 06:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary. Content overlaps with too many other articles.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 10:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and modify ethnicity is not, as some seem to suggest, an exact science. It is basically nationhood with a common geneological link. Since the white people in the UK are a fairly ethnically homogenous group and certainly can be and are identified as a nation, there is no reason to exclude this ethnic group from discussion. "White people" on the other hand are not an ethnic group in of themselves as they have no common national identities. On another note though, the article does overlap somewhat and discuss areas far broader than its scope; as such it should be altered.--Breadandcheese 13:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and either redirect to demography of the United Kingdom or recreate as dab page for British Isles nationalities. A census term is not an ethnicity and is not in itself deserving of an article.--cj | talk 13:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because it is a census category does not mean it is not an ethnicity however. A quick Googling reveals the term to have much wider usage than simply the census. --Breadandcheese 14:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article relates to an official category in widespread use Romper 15:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense. Perspicacite 02:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Many people seem unable to realise that "White" is a racial definition and not an ethnic one; again supporting my view that this is a fake 'ethnicity' or 'ancestry' conjured up by the British public service. Michael ^talk 03:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'd go farther and say that White is not even a racial definition, it is a very plastic and amorphous concept, with different meanings to different people. I think the confusion is with relation to Black British and White British, but these are not comparable terms. As I understand it Black British is an ethnic concept because for a long time the overwhelming majority of Black British people were African Caribbean people with their own ethnic identity. White British is more of a "none of the above" category used to classify people who don't fit into any other group. I read that there is going to be a change to the way ethnic groups are designated in the next census, for example White English, White Welsh etc.[66] All the best. Alun 05:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While 'White British' as an ethnicity is a nonsense, it is an official UK government classification whether we like it or not. The census classifications are really about race rather than ethnicity, but they don't seem to want to use the former term. Deleting an article because you disagree with the government's classification is daft, though.--Michig 14:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes, it is an official census definition. I am just questioning the encyclopaedicity of a census definition as the subject of a WP article.--Ramdrake 15:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Besides just because it's an official census category (it is not defined is it, anyone can self identify as White British even if they are neither White nor British by social convention, after all it's an "ethnic group" according to the census bureau) doesn't mean it should have it's own encyclopaedia article. Given that the article only contains demographic data it can easily be redirected to Demographics of the United Kingdom. Alun 16:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The whole ethnicity industry is a nonsense, but this category is now routinely found on its lousy forms. Beorhtric 16:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not used that much though is it. Take a look at the a google search of "White British", the first two are wikipedia Demography of the United Kingdom articles, the fourth most popular web page search for "White British" is the "Official Website for the British White Cattle Association of America." Hmmm.[67] Alun 17:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as proposed by Michael. This reasons for deletion appear to me to be much the same as for the deleted article Ethnic English. 'White British' is a supremacist neologism used to promote a form of triumphalist ideology by which members of certain racist organisations use to view themselves as superior to the rest of society on the basis of their self-proclaimed ethnic origins. The term is not used officially outside of this context, as it runs contrary to enlightened state policy of Multiculturalism, by which citizens of the United Kingdom can have parity of esteem, regardless of their origin. --Gavin Collins 10:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Are you serious? The term is used officially by the UK government, to differentiate citizens by race/ethnicity for the purposes of equality monitoring, etc. It has nothing to do with white supremacy. The issue here is whether White British is a valid article, which I believe it is as the whole 'ethnicity' classification system used in the UK is worthy of explanation, and explaining all of the categories to any depth in a single article would make that article too large. --Michig 10:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Quite right Michig, people should be more aware that an "ethnic group" is not the same as a "race", and if something is "ethnic" that also doesn't mean it's exotic (like African or Asian)! An ethnic group is just a set of people who identify with one another, or are identified by others as a category or sub-category of people, ususally from political boundaries or heritage. A race is a taxonomic socal construct that attempts to categorise people based on morphological traits (like skin colour). Thus, I could be considered ethnically Northern, or ethnically Mancunian, but still Northerners and Mancs are not races of men!!!! Even if this article is deleted on grounds of misunderstanding what an ethnic group is, and what the very practical and official term "White British" means, please guys learn about ethnicity if nothing else, as this misinfomation is spoiling Wikipedia, your lifeskills and possibly our "ethnically diverse" communities! Jza84 00:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this term has an official existence, I don't see anything wrong with it. Wedineinheck 07:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep I have decided because why not White British when we have Black British which describes an equally diverse group? It would be positive discrimination towards one group over another. As to 'britons' I don't know anyone who uses that term to describe themselves, only to describe the ancient britons, So that's a different article.Merkinsmum 20:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to those stating "Strongest possible", etc. Your argument is what carries the weight, not your bolded text. I personally tend to view those who use "strongest possible" or CAPS as being too emotionally involved to be reasoning their views fairly and rationally. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

we have only used the formatting of bold everyone else has used to start the comments/opinions. I for one have not used caps. Of course we have strong views if people are trying to write out mentions of important parts of our identity. But that doesn't mean we are irrational. Your comments are very rude, and verge on 'having a go' at others, IMHO.Merkinsmum 19:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this odd expansion of a category on a census form into a full scale article is undue weight at the very least, and appears to be a form of POV forking. If found necessary, merge anything appropriate into Demography of England, although I wouldn't worry too much about it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TharkunColl 22:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy copyvio. android 79 01:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Gyorgy

Article may be a copyright violation or at least it is written as an essay or a story. Delete--JForget 01:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio of this page, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest songs by artist

List that transcends music style, could grow but never end. WWGB 01:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR, loosely associated topic. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listcruft. android 79 01:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Verification for each artist will be extremely difficult. Apart from interminable length of the article, there will be inevitable duplication. (How many versions of Hey Jude will appear?) WWGB 01:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I hate lists that use words like "longest" in their titles, because "longest" is a superlative, and makes it really difficult to understand exactly what the list is supposed to be. Assuming that "longest" means the longest song recorded by an individual artist, the list is unmaintainable, as anyone who has ever recorded a song would meet the criteria for inclusion. Assuming that "longest" is just meant to refer to songs that are considered by the author to be the longest songs ever recorded (which I've seen before), there would be no way to distinguish a "longest" song from a song that is not "longest". You see the problem with superlatives? Calgary 01:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment well there is a way to measure the length of a song easily, i.e. how long it goes on for in terms of time. I don't have a problem with that as a concept, but this is a bit of a lame list anyway.Merkinsmum 01:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is ridiculous. As the nom said, it will never end. WP:NOT#DIR. --H irohisat ^Talk 01:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Happily, there are only five songs on the list so far, so I'm glad that it was done as a trial balloon. There have been some creative artists, like Andy Warhol (who, thank God, didn't record music) and they experimented with things like 24 hour long films. I've heard of David Bowie, but don't know about Porcupine Tree, or the aptly named groups Sleep or Dream Theater. But there's a reason that nobody wants to play these on the radio or at a party. Mandsford 02:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unmaintainable, completely lacking in objective criteria, a loose association of topics. Resolute 03:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Quite simply, listcruft. The article is far from complete (only five songs) and would be difficult to maintain. TheInfinityZero 03:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article could become unmaintainably long (it'd have to list every artist around the world along with their longest song). It'd also be very difficult to verify, what sources would be used to show that this song is, indeed, the longest of theirs and not just a really long one. For example, Weird Al has two songs that top 10 minutes (Albuquerque and Trapped in the Drive Thru) or whatever they're called and editors may unwittingly keep changing it back and forth. Anyway, my point was that this article is an unmaintainable loosely-associated list. Useight 03:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's also the subjective criteria of a "long song". Spellcast 03:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:LC, Criteria not specified, this could end up being a "Longest List of List" candidate. (Grin) ^Ariel♥Gold 03:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per everyone (snowball?). Technically, every artist has a longest song and how many artists are there? Axem Titanium 04:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rather pointless and random, isn't it? Maxa megalon 2000 05:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - stunningly indiscriminate; it literally purports to have an entry for every single artist in music. Anyways, why is "longest song" important, and non-trivial? I know quite a few "longest songs" which are like a 3 minute song and then 10 minutes of clicking and mic tests. --Haemo 05:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not explain why the subject is of significance or importance nor provides any context. It seems to me to be just trivia for the stake of it. --Malcolmxl5 12:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to my calculations, given current population levels and the present market price of lentils, it will be approximately 11 quintillion years before a bunch of drunk guys in a bar have an argument about which Slint song was the longest. Until then, delete this hopeless trivia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons above, and to add to the snowball. deranged bulbasaur 19:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not see how the longest song an artist has is notable, so such a list would be a trivial intersection. Brusegadi 02:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incomplete and unmaintainable list.--JForget 00:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result is speedy close - see the entry below which has the initial nomination, Non-admin closure.--JForget 01:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Junk Pros

AfDs for this article:

Article asserts no notability, cites no sources, only external links are to company website. Has been tagged with AfDM template since April 2007. Talk page does not exist, so no apparent discussion. Advertisement. Dean Wormer 01:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Junk Pros

The article is just an advertisement for a non-notable company. Delete per lack of sources and advertisement.--JForget 01:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article asserts no notability, cites no sources, only external links are to company website. Has been tagged with AfDM template since April 2007. Talk page does not exist, so no apparent discussion. Advertisement. - Dean Wormer 01:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - It is technically spam. Brusegadi 02:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or add notability information - The article in no way explains what makes this company notable. At the same time, it appears almost as an advertisement for the company. The article should be kept only if rewritten. TheInfinityZero 03:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G11 (Blatant Advertising). It has the phone number in it, so I think that's pretty much enough to be considered spam. Useight 03:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think that every "Garbage disposal" company needs an article on Wikipedia. Also, this article uses words that really appear to be promotional ("Mission statement", phone number, etc.). Nothing notable about it. ^Ariel♥Gold 04:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with integrity -Drdisque 04:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humanitix

Linux distro still in beta. Article gives no assertion of notability; and no useful content. Oli Filth 00:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy deletion. No assertion of notability, last sentence is obvious advertising, and the only thing useful in this article is the first sentence. iced kola^(Mmm...) 00:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent, reliable, secondary sources that attest to notability per WP:N. TerriersFan 00:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 00:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - n.n., no WP:V WP:RS. Possibly qualify for speedy under G11 or A7. KTC 01:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it seems sort of like WP:NFT because of "It was originally thought of [...] when Shaun and Anthony met". Axem Titanium 05:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No hint of notability. No sources given, nor are any readily found. --SmokeyJoe 07:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete with no prejudice against creating a redirect to a suitable target. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Braffrock

Non-notable neologism. Oli Filth 00:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Spring Rubber 00:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found this term mentioned on Pitchfork ([[68]]) and came here to see what was meant by the term. I hope someone can find a source to cite for the exact definition, but this article is not useless. NeilDespres 01:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Pitchfork be damned, it has 18 G-hits. Eighteen. If nothing else, the guys at Pitchfork made it up on the spot and it would still be a neo/protologism. Incidentally, "Braff rock" has about 150. Axem Titanium 04:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- while it may be useful, it's still a non-notable neologism. --Haemo 05:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- If anything the article should forward to "Braff rock," with content preserved --Christopher Lame 14:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just throwing this out there: how about making the article a redirect to Garden State (soundtrack)? Zagalejo 20:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It only has 18 Google hits. Non-notable neologism, has not reached the mainstream yet. Neranei (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable neologism. Nuttah68 14:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 01:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Nicole (film)

Speedy Delete non-notable upcoming film, crystalballism. Motorun0 20:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As much as I hate anytime I see anything about Anna Nicole... the sources from CNN, Daily Variety and the Associated Press clearly establish notability. WP:CRYSTAL, as I understand it, does not apply to sourced details about a movie that's already in production. --JayHenry 20:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the crystal ball policy is "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation" but this is verifiable, as JayHenry said. ugen64 21:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it may be a future film but per Ugen65, the speculation is at least verifiable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:Crystal is not broken because WP:V is met. Brusegadi 02:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as verifiable and notable. Not Crystall-ballism. I'm curious as to the rationale for the nominator claiming "non-notable", considering the undeniable notability of its subject, plus the fact it's being produced by and stars notable personalities. 23skidoo 04:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Non-Notable????? Even though it looks a bit early (although the earliness of this is peanuts compared to this. That's easily meets WP:V and certainly will be notable due to the events that happened to Smith especially in the final months.--JForget 00:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Its subject is undeniably notable, and the movie is already in production, so there are verifiable details about the film. Neranei (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.